Hi Erik, Thoughtful insight.
We do need to start dating rather than push straight to an arranged marriage, I think, and I suspect we need some from the respective communities to act as marriage brokers. The top down approach has not worked despite a number of attempts by well-intentioned individuals or groups, mainly as I understand it because there were influential groups inside SNOMED who voted down a formal arrangement with openEHR – others will know the details but they won’t really make a difference now. I think success will only come if there is a grassroots push/demand inside SNOMED for purposeful interaction (engagement in both senses, perhaps) by member countries or influential organisations, plus reinforcement and advocacy by those on the inside of SNOMED, like yourself. That is why I nominated (unsuccessfully) for the Modeling Advisory Group – others will need to take on that role on my behalf. BTW last I heard, Brazil will in final stages of becoming a SNOMED member, but I haven’t had an update since Medinfo. Regards Heather From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Erik Sundvall Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2015 12:31 AM To: For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org> Subject: Re: SV: openEHR and IHTSDO (SNOMED CT) Hi! Both openEHR and SNOMED CT have good technical foundations regarding versioning, semantic scalability, technical scalability etc. Both communities, although organized a bit differently have a lot of clinicians creating and updating interesting and relevant content. They cover complementary, only partly overlapping areas of the information modeling space needed in current and future healthcare. From my perspective at least, openEHR and SNOMED CT look like a nice match that really should be used together in order to maximize the productive output from thousands of hours of clinical modeling done by serious people. Not using the power and experience of both communities together risks unnecessarily repeating a lot of work. Time that could be used in many better ways. The problem is the world they both exist in. Both have previously had problems figuring out sustainable business models for financing the important work they want the world to have, both now seem to have gotten to some kind of fairly stable financial situation, but not stable enough to have surplus and courage to spend resources on formally and practically connecting the two clinical modelling initiatives. (The technical things needed for using them together is already pretty good.) I think serious clinical modeling cooperation will increase once you have enough of both of their customers/owners/community that are demanding cooperation because they really see the benefits of it, and at the same time have the political/practical option of using them both together (having a SNOMED CT licence for example, or being allowed by local powers to use openEHR). Some of the countries listed by Tom may use openEHR and may also use SNOMED CT today but perhaps in different contexts, not together, that is not enough to get serious collaboration started. Look at Norway, great clinical grassroots + vendor + hospital-organization work regarding openEHR archetypes and templates, but not a member of IHTSDO and no national policy suggesting that SNOMED CT should be used. Look at Sweden, an active IHTSDO-member with SNOMED CT translated to Swedish, but no official policy on using openEHR archetyping and not (yet) enough vendors and/or healthcare organizations screaming out loud that they want to use openEHR archetypes and SNOMED CT together or putting resources into supporting such collaborative work. Both openEHR and IHTSDO organizations want "everybody" to be able to use their "products" (in IHTSDOs case provided that you buy into the organization) so: * IHTSDO wants to look as documentation-model-neutral as possible. * openEHR wants to look as terminology-model-neutral as possible. Does anybody else see potential problems in this situation? ;-) Having a relationship and staying single without obligations at the same time... :-( There are many people reading this list, I wonder, where in the world do you see organizations with enough resources (and/or power) starting to get interested in getting shared practical detailed clinical modelling working for real using both openEHR and SNOMED CT together right now? I see future potential in the UK, Sweden, Slovenia, the Netherlands for example, other suggestions? What is the status of Brazil's current SNOMED CT interest? Best regards, Erik Sundvall Ph.D. Medical Informatics. Information Architect. Tel: +46-72-524 54 55<tel:%2B46-72-524%2054%2055> (or 010-1036252<tel:010-1036252> in Sweden) Region Östergötland: erik.sundv...@regionostergotland.se<mailto:erik.sundv...@regionostergotland.se> (previously lio.se<http://lio.se>) http://www.regionostergotland.se/cmit/ Linköping University: erik.sundv...@liu.se<mailto:erik.sundv...@liu.se>, http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ P.s. Disclaimer: I have been a member of the Technical Committe of IHTSDO and I am a member of the openEHR Specifications Editorial Committee, and know many very constructive and nice people within both organizations. Thus I am not neutral, I have an opinion, I have seen this couple dancing around each other for quite some time, through flirting and dissapointments. Sooner or later I think a more mature relationship will emerge, perhaps at first an arranged one, insisted on by their ancestors, users, members or whatever powers out there. A good relationship preserves the good things from both parties and creates new shared adventures/futures... On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com<mailto:thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com>> wrote: I don't personally have any opinion about prioritisation (there are obviously many factors relevant to each case), but openEHR archetypes are being used in: - Australia - Slovenia - Norway - Brazil - NHS England - Scotland NHS under official government projects, and in those countries plus Russia, New Zealand, Netherlands, Sweden, Uruguay, UK, South Korea, Switzerland, Poland and China in deployed solutions. In addition, CIMI (an archetype initiative) is becoming an official part of HL7 and will slowly find use in the US (at least), and 13606 archetypes are being used in Spain, Brazil, and I don't know how many other countries. These locations are potential places for SNOMED to be used more (other than UK, arguably). If the IHTSDO mentality is to find places where SNOMED is already being used and concentrate on that, that's a misunderstanding of how things work in the real world. Terminology gets used as an enabling tool, not a headline project - it's only an interesting proposition when there are information models and health data computing platforms & solutions in place that can use it. - thomas On 29/09/2015 09:03, Mikael Nyström wrote: Hi, My impression is that IHTSDO prioritize collaboration with organizations with products that are actively used in IHTSDO:s member countries. I guess that might be the reason why collaboration with for example WHO (ICD, ICF), Regenstrief Institute (LOINC) and International Council of Nurses (ICNP) have been prioritized in favor of openEHR. Proprietary information models are also more common than openEHR models and collaboration with the organizations (companies) behind the proprietary information models are probably done via IHTSDO's Vendor Liaison Forum. Regards Mikael _______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
