Hi Shinji, I think (hope) that trainers could discuss and agree on the core topics of an standard openEHR course, and then create an upper level layer to localize this core topics to the student's profile and the depth level (basic, intermediate, advanced) required by each course. Maybe I'm oversimplifying something really hard to do, but why not give this a chance? IMO having a specific place to discuss training related topics is the very first step to reach consensus.
I'd like to discuss tool chains too! Maybe we can agree on general concepts and implement them on different technologies, that would be the best proof that the openEHR approach works and that doesn't matter what technology do you like. I've a very basic requirement list on each tool mentioned on my blog post diagram (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Yd3JhnuVjgk/TwMepovkBeI/AAAAAAAAE-4/7UCf-ry2JqY/s1600/openEHR+Toolchain+ppazos+sm.png). I've not included datawarehousing tools, but they should be part of the ecosystem too. -- 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 > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 23:23:19 +0900 > Subject: Re: Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas > for the future) > From: skoba at moss.gr.jp > To: openehr-clinical at openehr.org > CC: openehr-implementers at openehr.org; openehr-technical at openehr.org > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120105/52e1ac6f/attachment.html>
