Mike Mair wrote:
>Why not just limit the 'standard' to dictionaries of archetypes (informed by >ontologies), and containers to convey them. > what we're doing is not much more than that. The containers are transactions or CEN compositions; to move them elswhere, wrap them in an EHR_EXTRACT. > We can use the access control >and document navigaton features of the CDA to convey the clinical objects >harvested at the health event. The level 2-3 CDA is a hybrid, part document, >part container. A Health Event Summary, a Transaction, a EHR Extract, and >a CDA document have very similar properties, including 'Persistence, >Stewardship, Wholeness, and human readiablity' (from the CDA specs). >Standards work is about achieving a shared way of doing something, so if we >all just adopt this 'low hanging fruit' the 'standard' will be served. > >There's work enough to do to get a shared design for the clinical objects. >Thomas Beale suggests that the CDA might have a role integrating legacy >systems into his EHR, which might be fine if the rest of us are 'legacy'. We >can use the CDA for our baseline interoperability between all systems >including GEHR systems. > I'll just expand on what I meant - I meant "legacy" systems which represent their data primarily as narrative - unstructured text, not as structured data. This is where the CDA comes in because level 1 or level 2 will handle the various levels of structuring. > >I am still not convinced that it is an EHR structure that has to be shared >for meaningful communication. Both aspects of interoperabiliy, functional >and semantic, can be served without sharing an EHR structure. > Ah but they cannot - if you can't write software which can assume the structures of data, you cannot do anything at all. - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
