Hi Pablo, and all I perfectly agree your idea. I have thought as you mentioned. I am planning my tool-chains on my Ruby implementation, too. Certification criteria are very difficult to evaluate. Training course would be a homework to localize.
Shinji Kobayashi 2012/1/4 pablo pazos <pazospablo at hotmail.com>: > Hi everyone, > > Recently we have ended the first edition of the course with a huge success. > And now we are thinking about the next steps to take. > > Here is a post on my blog about the conclusions and future > actions:?http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/2012/01/conclusiones-del-curso-de-openehr-en.html > (yo can see it in english by clicking ENGLISH on the top right corner of the > blog). > > > I want to share with the community a couple of ideas mentioned there. It > would be very nice to know what you think. > > openEHR certification: > > The first idea is on standarizing openEHR training, and to think about an > openEHR certification. I think this could be very good for the community and > for the openEHR organization too. > > It could be possible to create a mail list for openEHR trainers > (openehr-trainers at openehr.org)? So we could discuss about the topics and > ways of evaluation, and come out with an standard minimal program to all > openEHR courses. > > If we reach a standard minimal program for openEHR courses, could we get > formal support from openEHR.org to issue internationally valid openEHR > certificates? (obviously this is a question for the future, but IMO we need > to start thinking about it now). > > > 10 projects to adopt openEHR: > > We thought about 10 projects (or so) in two areas: software and clinical > modeling. > > Because openEHR propose a tool-chain based process of creating EHRs, we need > to have each one of the links of that chain in order to adopt and implement > openEHR easily. > > Now there is a little tooling available, and some of it is not open source. > In projects at a national level we need to use open source software, because > each country will need to make it's own customizations to each tool. > > In the other hand, we need to model other things that are clinical knowledge > too, like processes and rules to enable CDS, in order to support full EHR > implementation (e.g. I think we could recommend ways to express rules based > on archetype ids and paths, and create software tools to support that > specification, but we need to work the openEHR services specs first....). > > There is a diagram on my blog post that shows the tools we propose to 1. > develope if there is no tool that support its functionality or it's > closed-source, 2. improve the current open source tools. > > On the clinical modeling side, we have engaged doctors and nurses on the > creation and translation of archetypes. Now there are two of our students > that already commited archetypes to the CKM: Dr. Domingo Liotta and Dr. > Leonardo Der Jachadurian. > > I hope we could propose to create prototypes of those projects in out local > universities and coordinate the projects so we do not overlap each other, > with the objective of completing the tool chain with open source > developments. > > > > What do you think? > > > -- > Kind regards, > Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez > LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez > Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
