I have a strong feeling that "someone" in the Norwegian MoH have ordered a report that gives them a reason to choose a big vendor of EHR from the US? Like, let me think of a randomly chosen one - NOT - , Epic.This is political, and has nothing to do with the type of rationale that exist in normal people.
Still, it's worth correcting. Any ammunition in that battle from the openEHR community is appreciated. Vebj?rn Denne meldingen inneholder ikke sensitiv informasjon som bryter med Oslo universitetssykehus HFs krav til informasjonssikkerhet. (In compliance with the Security Policy of Oslo University Hospital, the content of this message (including any attachments) is of a non-sensitive nature) Fra: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] P? vegne av Bakke, Silje Ljosland Sendt: 29. oktober 2014 09:31 Til: For openEHR clinical discussions Emne: RE: Relationship openEHR/CIMI Here?s another statement from one of the mentioned reports (translated from Norwegian language). This also seems like a bit of a misunderstanding to me. Would anyone like to comment? ?National ICT has chosen archetypes as a method for structuring EHR data. It is unclear whether other options have been considered, for example SNOMED-CT in combination with ICD-10 as used in many of the leading systems internationally.? Regards, Silje From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bakke, Silje Ljosland Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:31 AM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: RE: Relationship openEHR/CIMI I didn?t know openEHR had previously been on their hype cycle. When was this, and what happened? And where does Oracle come into this? Regards, Silje From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dr Sam Heard Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:31 AM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: RE: Relationship openEHR/CIMI I would correct them and say that openehr has been on their hype cycle before. Do we know what Oracle is doing? Would be good to correct their statement. Point out that their US view means they are not globally relevant! Cheers Sam Sent from my phone ________________________________ From: Thomas Beale<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: ?29/?10/?2014 4:17 AM To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org> Subject: Re: Relationship openEHR/CIMI On 28/10/2014 18:41, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote: Thanks Thomas and Seref! I think the main point for this report is your statement on what openEHR is in relation to CIMI. I don?t know why they?ve brought CIMI into this at all really, since neither DIPS nor the National ICT governance is relating our work to CIMI at all. Where would they have got this kind of misconception from? well, as you know Gartner does love their hype-cycle. I guess they tend to view things from that perspective. How they think CIMI is strongly connected with openEHR, or even anything like the same kind of thing is a mystery. I imagine that some of us here, or the board could produce a statement on openEHR / CIMI, but really I think it would make more sense if the relevant Norway authority (MoH or whomever) was to make that request. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141029/88cef01a/attachment-0001.html>
