Heya Tim, --- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com, Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it seems to me that openEHR as it stands is an interesting and > potentially useful technical advance which permits greater semantic > precision and thus may ease the valid interchange of health data, but > that there is a whole raft of sociological questions about how it might > work in practice which still need to be addressed, and which probably > can't be answered until more people start to use it and there is an > openEHR "ecosystem" to observe. > > On the other hand, the Regenstreif/OpenMRS approach is arguably less > rigorous, but has still been shown to work very well in practice over > many decades, at least at the individual clinic/institute/repository > level, but that its utility in a fully federated environment is still > being explored. > > But it is not an either/or situation, and one approach does not need to > prevail over the other. > > Tim C One quick clarification. The database approach OpenMRS utilizes, in fact *has* been demonstrated convincingly to work in a federated model. The INPC is one of the only truly operational RHIOs in the country, and it's comprised of over 10 federated repositories all built on top of this database design. Collectively, the INPC has over 2 million patient records, and over 1 billion clinical observations stored within it. However, the INPC is not built upon OpenMRS. It's built on top of the RMRS, which was conceptualized in the early 70's. We're a close cousin, open source, modern version of the RMRS model. Best, -Paul
