Ed: > On the other hand, I find that messaging still has its place
Yes. HL7 is not just interested in clinical records and logical record architecture but also in capturing healthcare processes, both administrative and clinical. "messages" is simply the way that we describe the agreed processes. Increasingly, we will be migrating to a services-based language to describe the processes. Hugh: well put. We will need to search for a productive way forward so that instead of looking across the technical gulf at each others strengths and trying to decide whether to critise, we can actually share strengths. Grahame Hugh Leslie wrote: > Hi Ed > > I think that there is a sense of 'competition' from both sides of the fence > unfortunately as people push their ideas and people who are passionate about > what they are doing work towards a common goal of ubiquitous > interoperability. > I think that openEHR people have had to push very hard to get to where we are > at > the moment with very limited resources and so at times the passion may come > across as animosity. On the other hand, there has been a lot of opposition > in > the past to openEHR from many in the HL7 community. There are positive > things > that come out of this I think as challenging the status quo can lead to > better > outcomes and rigorous, open minded debate is a good thing. > > I think that as long as we all have open minds and are willing to look out of > the box, then we should be able to move things forward. We are certainly > seeing > many jurisdictions in the world moving strongly towards openEHR for clinical > modelling and the logical record architecture. > > For your interest, apart from the systems that Tom has already mentioned, we > are > starting to see vendors moving to openEHR for their clinical repositories. > In > Australia alone, there are at least 6 system vendors that are building > systems > based on openEHR repositories and interestingly, not all of these are using > Ocean tools either. We are also working with a large research database for > the > Cancer Council in Victoria, Australia to bring 18 years of longitudinal data > into an openEHR repository to future proof it. > > regards Hugh > > William E Hammond wrote: >> There is no HL7. It is an organization with many members. Most people who >> believe that HL7 is just message-centric are outside people, plus, I admit, >> some are in HL7. In my opinion, the CDA, and certainly level 3, are >> templates/archetypes in compositiopn. I further believe that the CDA will >> adopt clinical statements. On the other hand, I find that messaging still >> has its place. >> >> Given that, I think openEHR has excellent archetypes that have intellectual >> value. In my opinion, there is considerable interest in archetypes in HL7. >> I particularly believe the board is committed to this direction. We >> certainly have several persons on the board that are strongly committed to >> that direction. Thinking HL7 as only message-centric is coupled with v2 of >> which there is still a strong following. >> I think the furture will be different. >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> Thomas Beale >> <thomas.beale at oce >> >> aninformatics.com To >> > For openEHR technical discussions >> Sent by: <openehr-technical at openehr.org> >> >> openehr-technical cc >> -bounces at openehr. >> >> org Subject >> Re: Please respond by Nov. 5th: >> Known Free/Open Source >> 11/06/2008 05:20 EHR/EMR Deployment Count. >> PM >> >> >> Please respond to >> For openEHR >> technical >> discussions >> <openehr-technica >> l at openehr.org> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> William E Hammond wrote: >> >>> Thanks. I agree that things are moving ahead. I wish we could remove >>> >> some >> >>> of the animosity (maybe I am reading it worng) towards HL7 (not from >>> >> you), >> >>> and close the gap between the two efforts. >>> >>> best Regards. >>> >>> >>> >> *Ed, >> >> I think think the biggest problem with respect to HL7 is the >> message-centric approach to clinical content modelling. I really don't >> understand why HL7 doesn't want to use archetypes and templates, to >> express clinical and related content. It works and is 'good enough' for >> now, and most importantly, it supports reusability - i.e. it is a >> single-source modelling framework. In HL7 it is very difficult to reuse >> an RMIM for a display screen, a data capture form, as a basis for >> generating a piece of code, and as a source of any number of XML-based >> outputs, including messages (these are now working in production), also >> PDF and HTML variants. Let alone as a basis for writing re-usable >> queries and expressing Snomed data bindings. The querying is working in >> real systems now, and we are working in earnest with IHTSDO on the >> Snomed side of things. It's not perfect of course, and more work is >> required in areas like representation of process (e.g. care plans), but >> the reuse capability is very high. >> >> Now, groups of clinicians working on archetypes and Snomed have already >> expressed the desire not to have to rebuild what they create in HL7 >> messages or CDA templates or any other concrete technology. Nor do we >> want to have to write queries that are specific to each of these forms, >> or define more than one kind of Snomed binding. >> >> - thomas >> >> >> >> * >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >> >> >> > > -- > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
