Question on the role of EHR reference models forachieving functional interoperability
You did indeed quote the definition from 20514 indeed. And I agree that the implication of the standard is that you can't do things without a formal all-encompassing top to bottom model. So I think you're right that the standards over-state the case. (but hey, what standard doesn't?) I was just pointing out that it's not that far over-stated though. Grahame > You are right, there must be some kind of rules when PDFs are exchanged > to ensure that they are human readable and can be trusted by the > receiver (I also absolutely agree with Stef here), so for example the > natural language used must be agreed in advance and the meaning of > uncommon medical notions should also be agreed (although this point > probably already goes in the direction of semantic interoperability). > Anyway, with the notion "standardized EHR reference model" as used > within ISO 20514, I rather associate in my head a model such as the > openEHR reference model or EN/ISO 13606-1. Strangely the term > "standardized EHR reference model" is not itself defined within ISO > 20514, but there is a reference to the notion "EHR architecture", which > is defined in 20514 as "the generic structural components from which all > EHRs are built, defined in terms of an information model". > So, it probably depends on how one interprets the notion "standardized > EHR reference model" => if it is interpreted as "some kind of - maybe > also informal - rules between sender and receiver" than I think it is > required for functional interoperability. If it is interpreted as a > model such as the openEHR reference model or EN/ISO 13606-1, then I > would say it supports a "higher level of functional interoperability" > but is not actually required for achieving basic functional interop. > >> Then there's the question of interoperability. Generally what you >> describe >> is *integration* not interoperability. Picking these two apart is a >> fun game, >> but generally inteoperability is more about plug-n-play where as >> integration >> is about two systems made to work together. As you move your example >> from two >> to many systems, you'll be increasingly moving towards a standardised EHR >> reference model. > > In my question I actually referred to the definition of "functional > interoperability" as is given in ISO 20514. > > Cheers, Georg >
Question on the role of EHR reference models for achieving functional interoperability
hi Thilo >> I would like to ask you for your opinion on a statement in ISO/DTR 20514 >> (Definition, scope and context of the EHR), which says that "[...] a >> standardised EHR reference model is required for achieving functional >> interoperability [...]" (page 7 of ISO 20514). >> >> Functional interoperability is defined as "the ability of two or more >> systems to exchange information (so that it is human readable by the >> receiver)". >> >> I am now wondering why an EHR reference model is seen to be REQUIRED for >> achieving functional interoperability. If I exchange bare PDF-documents >> (without any describing metadata) between two EHR systems, then I would say >> there is a good chance that these docs are readable by a human receiver and >> thus functional interoperability should be achieved although clearly an EHR >> reference model is not used. well, not so fast. If you are exchanging pdf documents, you need some rules about how they are exchanged, and when, and then what happens as a consequence. These can be rather informal, but nevertheless, they must exist. And once they do, aren't you on the way to have an EHR reference model? Then there's the question of interoperability. Generally what you describe is *integration* not interoperability. Picking these two apart is a fun game, but generally inteoperability is more about plug-n-play where as integration is about two systems made to work together. As you move your example from two to many systems, you'll be increasingly moving towards a standardised EHR reference model. And there's no semantic anything in sight yet! Grahame
Not entirely related to this mail list...
The original states there are 'behind the scenes' extras on the DVD, so I guess that's what the first video is. Lisa Thurston Phone +61.8.8223.3075 Skype lisathurston Ocean Informatics Pty Ltd Ground floor, 64 Hindmarsh Square Adelaide SA 5000 http://www.oceaninformatics.com Ian McNicoll wrote: > Brilliant.. very funny > > Here is the original 'official' video > > http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YJxTznwRzs4&feature=related > > It seems to be the same set of actors.. intruiging??? > > Dr Ian McNicoll > office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 > mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 > skype ianmcnicoll > > Consultant - Ocean Informatics ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com > Consultant - IRIS GP Accounts > > Member of BCS Primary Health Care Specialist Group ? www.phcsg.org > > > 2008/6/24 Seref Arikan : > >> Apologies for taking the liberty of sharing this with you, but IMHO it is >> worth seeing. Tim Benson has noticed it first. >> >> http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=IfprGOiQklU&feature=related >> >> Regards >> Seref >> >>
Question on the role of EHR reference models forachieving functional interoperability
Hi Grahame, > well, not so fast. If you are exchanging pdf documents, you need some > rules > about how they are exchanged, and when, and then what happens as a > consequence. > These can be rather informal, but nevertheless, they must exist. And once > they > do, aren't you on the way to have an EHR reference model? You are right, there must be some kind of rules when PDFs are exchanged to ensure that they are human readable and can be trusted by the receiver (I also absolutely agree with Stef here), so for example the natural language used must be agreed in advance and the meaning of uncommon medical notions should also be agreed (although this point probably already goes in the direction of semantic interoperability). Anyway, with the notion "standardized EHR reference model" as used within ISO 20514, I rather associate in my head a model such as the openEHR reference model or EN/ISO 13606-1. Strangely the term "standardized EHR reference model" is not itself defined within ISO 20514, but there is a reference to the notion "EHR architecture", which is defined in 20514 as "the generic structural components from which all EHRs are built, defined in terms of an information model". So, it probably depends on how one interprets the notion "standardized EHR reference model" => if it is interpreted as "some kind of - maybe also informal - rules between sender and receiver" than I think it is required for functional interoperability. If it is interpreted as a model such as the openEHR reference model or EN/ISO 13606-1, then I would say it supports a "higher level of functional interoperability" but is not actually required for achieving basic functional interop. > Then there's the question of interoperability. Generally what you describe > is *integration* not interoperability. Picking these two apart is a fun > game, > but generally inteoperability is more about plug-n-play where as > integration > is about two systems made to work together. As you move your example from > two > to many systems, you'll be increasingly moving towards a standardised EHR > reference model. In my question I actually referred to the definition of "functional interoperability" as is given in ISO 20514. Cheers, Georg
Question on the role of EHR reference models for achieving functional interoperability
Hi Georg, I agree with your argument. Distinguishing "advanced functional interoperability" from PDF like "functional interoperability" is helpful as the information can be presented in a more or less customised way leveraging the underlying RM classes -> Ocean's EHRview (https://wiki.oceaninformatics.com/confluence/display/ocean/EhrView+Demonstration - unfortunately currently unavailable) is an example for such a generic display mechanism. Obviously if the archetypes are known as well more sophisticated customization is possible. Every clinical information system could implement a similar mechanism to display openEHR data (even without archetypes) more or less adapted to their environment. However, this is only helpful for read-only interfaces. To be able to edit the data the archetypes have to be known! Cheers, Thilo On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Georg Duftschmid wrote: > Dear all, > > I would like to ask you for your opinion on a statement in ISO/DTR 20514 > (Definition, scope and context of the EHR), which says that "[...] a > standardised EHR reference model is required for achieving functional > interoperability [...]" (page 7 of ISO 20514). > > Functional interoperability is defined as "the ability of two or more > systems to exchange information (so that it is human readable by the > receiver)". > > I am now wondering why an EHR reference model is seen to be REQUIRED for > achieving functional interoperability. If I exchange bare PDF-documents > (without any describing metadata) between two EHR systems, then I would say > there is a good chance that these docs are readable by a human receiver and > thus functional interoperability should be achieved although clearly an EHR > reference model is not used. > > I agree that an EHR reference model alone is not enough to achieve semantic > interoperability (agreed archetypes and terminology are missing) and > therefore by using an EHR reference model alone one can still only achieve > functional interoperability. However, this seems to me as some kind of > "advanced functional interoperability", where the receiving EHR system knows > the basic components (the RM classes and their attributes) from which EHR > information is composed. > > So I have the impression that an EHR reference model helps to achieve some > kind of "advanced functional interoperability", but I would not say that it > is REQUIRED to achieve functional interoperability (refering to the > PDF-exchange as a counter-example). > > What do you think? > > Thank you for any comments and best regards, > Georg > ___ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >
Question on the role of EHR reference models for achieving functional interoperability
Dear Georg, Op 24-jun-2008, om 12:16 heeft Georg Duftschmid het volgende geschreven: > I am now wondering why an EHR reference model is seen to be > REQUIRED for achieving functional interoperability. If I exchange > bare PDF-documents (without any describing metadata) between two > EHR systems, then I would say there is a good chance that these > docs are readable by a human receiver and thus functional > interoperability should be achieved although clearly an EHR > reference model is not used. Theoretically you're right; there is a good change that these docs are readable by human. The real question is: are these usable? Maybe such documents are usable between two health care providers who know and trust each-other. But now I receive such a document from somebody I don't/ superficially know. Am I willing to use (potentially critical) information in the treatment of my patient without knowing the proper context. By doing so I'll take over the responsibility. So if now my patient dies based on wrong interpretation of the incomplete information I'm liable for the death of that patient So I would never use that information and do everything all over again. Why shouldn't I, I'm getting paid for this double work as well (as least here in the Netherlands this holds true and this is what we call 'perverse incentives'). Thing is that if we leave room to doubt the quality of the information and/or are not able to create insight in the responsibilities and the transfer thereof, people won't use it. In that case what's the use of an EHR in the first place? Cheers, Stef -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080624/468ec8fc/attachment.html>
Question on the role of EHR reference models for achieving functional interoperability
Dear all, I would like to ask you for your opinion on a statement in ISO/DTR 20514 (Definition, scope and context of the EHR), which says that "[...] a standardised EHR reference model is required for achieving functional interoperability [...]" (page 7 of ISO 20514). Functional interoperability is defined as "the ability of two or more systems to exchange information (so that it is human readable by the receiver)". I am now wondering why an EHR reference model is seen to be REQUIRED for achieving functional interoperability. If I exchange bare PDF-documents (without any describing metadata) between two EHR systems, then I would say there is a good chance that these docs are readable by a human receiver and thus functional interoperability should be achieved although clearly an EHR reference model is not used. I agree that an EHR reference model alone is not enough to achieve semantic interoperability (agreed archetypes and terminology are missing) and therefore by using an EHR reference model alone one can still only achieve functional interoperability. However, this seems to me as some kind of "advanced functional interoperability", where the receiving EHR system knows the basic components (the RM classes and their attributes) from which EHR information is composed. So I have the impression that an EHR reference model helps to achieve some kind of "advanced functional interoperability", but I would not say that it is REQUIRED to achieve functional interoperability (refering to the PDF-exchange as a counter-example). What do you think? Thank you for any comments and best regards, Georg -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080624/4cd095f3/attachment.html>
Not entirely related to this mail list...
Apologies for taking the liberty of sharing this with you, but IMHO it is worth seeing. Tim Benson has noticed it first. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=IfprGOiQklU&feature=related Regards Seref -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080624/67ac556c/attachment.html>
Not entirely related to this mail list...
On further reflection.. Either, CfH has a much better corporate sense of humour than most!! or The production of the first 'official' video is equally part of an elaborate spoof, the real message being conveyed by the 'behind-the-scenes' clip. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll Consultant - Ocean Informatics ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Consultant - IRIS GP Accounts Member of BCS Primary Health Care Specialist Group ? www.phcsg.org 2008/6/24 Lisa Thurston : > The original states there are 'behind the scenes' extras on the DVD, so > I guess that's what the first video is. > > Lisa Thurston > Phone +61.8.8223.3075 > Skype lisathurston > > Ocean Informatics Pty Ltd > Ground floor, 64 Hindmarsh Square > Adelaide SA 5000 > > http://www.oceaninformatics.com > > Ian McNicoll wrote: >> Brilliant.. very funny >> >> Here is the original 'official' video >> >> http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YJxTznwRzs4&feature=related >> >> It seems to be the same set of actors.. intruiging??? >> >> Dr Ian McNicoll >> office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 >> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 >> skype ianmcnicoll >> >> Consultant - Ocean Informatics ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com >> Consultant - IRIS GP Accounts >> >> Member of BCS Primary Health Care Specialist Group ? www.phcsg.org >> >> >> 2008/6/24 Seref Arikan : >> >>> Apologies for taking the liberty of sharing this with you, but IMHO it is >>> worth seeing. Tim Benson has noticed it first. >>> >>> http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=IfprGOiQklU&feature=related >>> >>> Regards >>> Seref >>> >>> > ___ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >
Not entirely related to this mail list...
Brilliant.. very funny Here is the original 'official' video http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YJxTznwRzs4&feature=related It seems to be the same set of actors.. intruiging??? Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll Consultant - Ocean Informatics ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Consultant - IRIS GP Accounts Member of BCS Primary Health Care Specialist Group ? www.phcsg.org 2008/6/24 Seref Arikan : > Apologies for taking the liberty of sharing this with you, but IMHO it is > worth seeing. Tim Benson has noticed it first. > > http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=IfprGOiQklU&feature=related > > Regards > Seref > > > ___ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >
Possible error in UML: ITEM does not inherit from LOCATABLE...
Hi, In the actual UML diagram the ITEM class does not inherit from the LOCATABLE class, whereas in the document 'Data Structures Information Model' on p23 it does. Is there any reason for that or is it an error? Cheers Bruno -- Bruno Cadonna Database and Information Systems (DIS) Faculty of Computer Science Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Piazza Domenicani 3 39100 Bozen/Bolzano Italy web: https://www.inf.unibz.it/dis/wp/ -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cadonna.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 452 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080624/1600a508/attachment.vcf>
