Hi! In the video http://vimeo.com/106445729 Wes Rishel politely discusses where HL7 FHIR could be placed in the the hype-cycle. The video is quite informative regarding how the curve works.
At 2:22 into the video the "peak of inflated epextations" is discussed in relation to implementations etc. I think it would be safe to say that openEHR (at least RM 1.0.2. with ADL 1.4) has passed that stage ages ago. Somebody should make a similar interview with Wes regarding openEHR. I think it would get may views and blog visits to whoever does it... :-) And now to the statement: ?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.? Whoever wrote that needs an update on the relationship between... a) Concept Model or ?Ontology? (Includes terminology systems like SNOMED-CT and ICD-10) and b) Information Model (detailed information structures for example clinical ones based on archetypes). A classic (somewhat informatics-nerdy but good) explanation of all this (plus decision support rules) is Alan Rectors et al's paper "Models and Inference Methods for Clinical Systems: A Principled Approach" available via http://scholar.google.se/scholar?cluster=12087444569850179215 I have not heard anybody seriously questioning the main conclusions of that paper. To create an EHR system you need information models ("b" above) to put the terminology codes ("a" above) in. Information models like openEHR support the use of both ICD-10 and SNOMED CT. The practical choice regarding information model (b) today is probably to either pick/trust a specific vendor's proprietary information model (for example what Epic uses internally) or to pick something vendor neutral (for example openEHR or ISO 13606). If you see vendor-lock-in as mainly positive or negative should probably infuence your choise... So regarding what "options have been considered" in Norway, the National ICT seems to have picked one of the vendor neutral options. It could have been understandable if they in the report asked for the rationale behind picking a specific information model (b) over another such model, but not to say that concept models (a) could be used instead of information models (b). Please forward this information in some suitable way to decision makers... Best regards, Erik Sundvall Ph.D. Medical Informatics. Information Architect. Tel: +46-72-524 54 55 (or 010-1036252 in Sweden) Li?: erik.sundvall at lio.se http://www.lio.se/itc/ & http://www.lio.se/testbadd LiU: erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Grahame Grieve <grahameg at gmail.com> wrote: > Rofl here. That's really funny, reminded me of this: > > > http://healthitnerd.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/europes-turn-to-waste-money.html > > Grahame > > On 29 Oct 2014, at 7:31 pm, "Bakke, Silje Ljosland" < > silje.ljosland.bakke at helse-bergen.no> wrote: > > 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:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org > <openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org>] *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:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org > <openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org>] *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 <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > *Sent: *?29/?10/?2014 4:17 AM > *To: *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 > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141029/6f2fd55f/attachment-0001.html>
