Hi Diego,

Yes. I saw David Moner's presentation on these at the MIE conference
in Oslo, and he and Gerard Freriks gave a very powerful account of the
power of archetype development in messaging production.

However, these archetypes also point to a somewhat different approach
(at least for now) between the 13606 and openEHR communities, in that
the 13606 epSos archetypes are COMPOSITION archetypes, directly
modelled against the epSos requirement.

In openEHR we would take a rather different approach, by re-using more
generic Entry-level archetypes and building up the epSos requirement
via a template. In many respects this is somewhat closer to the CCD
approach where each CCD (medication, problem,etc) roughly equates to a
single archetype. Although this is more complex than David's approach,
it does let us re-use the archetypes in very different contexts. As
one example, I am currently involved in a project which uses the NEHTA
medication archetypes templated in a local vendor system, but will
re-use the same archetypes to create the epSOS Prescribing summary and
the Emergency summary.

Both approaches are valid and both are still much easier than
developing CDA but there is different design paradigm. Three-level
modelling, rather than two-level modelling?

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
office +44 (0)1536 414 994
fax +44 (0)1536 516317
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
skype ianmcnicoll
ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com

Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK
openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge
Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org




On 9 September 2011 15:28, Diego Bosc? <yampeku at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are already epSOS EN13606 archetypes
> http://www.epsos.eu/uploads/tx_epsosfileshare/D3.5.2_Appendix_G_EN13606_Implementation.pdf
>
> 2011/9/9 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>:
>> On 09/09/2011 14:01, Stef Verlinden wrote:
>>
>> Great initiative. Let's go for it. Even though I agree with your previous
>> remarks that this probably won't provide a long term solution, IMHO it's
>> absolutely necessary in order to secure short term progress.
>> Maybe a dumb question, but is there a way we can involve people form other
>> standard initiatives (DCM, HL7) in order to speed up harmonisation. More
>> specific: is there a mutual interest for all of us to invest in this.
>>
>> My experience is: the instant we 'involve every stakeholder' and set up some
>> large forum / club / organisation, everything becomes paralysed and
>> political, and tasks that should take 3 months take 3 years. So we need to
>> be careful...
>>
>> Specifically:
>>
>> myself and some others on this list are directly involved in an
>> international DCM effort, led by Dr Stan Huff (Intermountain Health), and
>> this should yield results before the end of the year
>> HL7 - here it depends on what we are talking about:
>>
>> HL7v2 messages - there are specific approaches emerging to map v2 messages
>> to openEHR, and I would see this as a seperate initiative (although
>> hopefully taking advantage of the same tooling)
>> CDAr2 - this has its own UML model (recently) and we may be able to define
>> some mapping rules / approaches. However, since the differences with openEHR
>> / 13606 are far greater than between the latter two, it is a bigger effort
>>
>> epSOS - this is a simple CCD that can easily be mapped to archetypes, and
>> maybe representing it as an RM might be useful.
>>
>> My feeling is to get the 13606 / openEHR question sorted out first, because
>> that is by far the easiest. If we stay focussed, unofficial (for now), and
>> make progress on that then we can tackle bigger beasts...
>>
>> - 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
>


Reply via email to