Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata
Crowdsourcing = Errata submission perhaps here http://oreilly.com/catalog/errata.csp?isbn=0636920020110 Of the reviews I read there was reference to 'rushed' missing chapters, and poor proof reading. Tom Seabury From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: 12 February 2012 13:01 To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: Re: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata It would be interesting to see what US-based list members think of what Michael has quoted below. Is openEHR really seen as 'controversial' in the US? (Controversy can be good - at least it means debate). The quote below about David Uhlman being CTO of openEHR in 2001 is certainly incorrect - I imagine it is supposed to read 'OpenEMR', going by what I see herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearHealth in Wikipedia (in any case, openEHR has never had a 'CTO' position). That's a surprisingly bad fault in O'Reilly editing; worse, the author page for David Uhlmanhttp://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/4766 on the O'Reilly website repeats the same error. This reviewhttp://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920020110.do#PowerReview on the same website seems to confirm a complete lack of review or editing of the original manuscript. O'Reilly obviously is missing basic mechanisms for quality control. But the more interesting question is: are the opinions in this book about openEHR representative of a US view? - thomas On 12/02/2012 11:22, Michael Osborne wrote: I read the recently released O'Reilly book Meaningful Use and Beyond on Safari books today and found the following errors and some quite blatantly false statements about OpenEHR. Firstly is the claim by one of the authors, David Uhlman, that he was CTO of openEHR in 2001 - a claim which Thomas Beale denies. David Uhlman is CEO of ClearHealth, Inc., which created and supports ClearHealth, the first and only open source, meaningful use-certified, comprehensive, ambulatory EHR David entered health-care in 2001 as CTO for the OpenEHR project. One of the first companies to try commercializing open source healthcare systems , OpenEHR met face first with the difficult realities of bringing proven mainstream technologies into the complicated and some- times nonsensical world of healthcare. Secondly, a nonsensical statement about openEHR in the book... p.161 OpenGALEN and OpenEHR are both attempts to promote open source ontology con- cepts. Both of the projects have been maturing but some view these as unnecessary additions or alternatives to SNOMED+UMLS. However, they are available under open source licensing terms might make them a better alternative to SNOMED for certain jurisdictions. And this, p163... OpenEHR is a controversial approach to applying knowledge engineering principles to the entire EHR, including things like the user interfaces. You might think of Open- EHR as an ontology for EHR software design. Many health informaticists disagree on the usefulness of OpenEHR. Some believe that HL7 RIM, given its comprehensive nature, is the highest level to which formal clinical knowledge managing needs to go. I'm beginning to lose all respect for O'Reilly press. It's been all downhill since the camel book. Cheers Michael Osborne -- Michael Osborne ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.orgmailto:openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it. Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation. NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and GSi recipients NHSmail provides an email address for your career in the NHS and can be accessed anywhere For more information and to find out how you can switch, visit www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/nhsmail -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120213/b719d214/attachment.html
Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata
For the most part, I find that people who write negative remarks most often know little about the subject. I for one have never viewed openEHR as controversial. I think openEHR is competitive as is HL7, IHE and most other organizations. Some of the competition is based on our belief that we are right; some on protection of our history and proprietary interests. Actually, much of our life is based on competition, and I don't think it is a bad thing. Pot-shots and misstatements like in this book are actually a sign of success for openEHR. Don't sweat it. W. Ed Hammond Director, Duke Center for Health Informatics 2424 Erwin Rd, 12th Floor, Room 12053 Phone: 919.668.2408 Fax: 919.668.7868 Assistant: Naomi Pratt Email: naomi.pratt at duke.edumailto:naomi.pratt at duke.edu Phone: 919.668.8753 From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:01 AM To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: Re: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata It would be interesting to see what US-based list members think of what Michael has quoted below. Is openEHR really seen as 'controversial' in the US? (Controversy can be good - at least it means debate). The quote below about David Uhlman being CTO of openEHR in 2001 is certainly incorrect - I imagine it is supposed to read 'OpenEMR', going by what I see herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearHealth in Wikipedia (in any case, openEHR has never had a 'CTO' position). That's a surprisingly bad fault in O'Reilly editing; worse, the author page for David Uhlmanhttp://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/4766 on the O'Reilly website repeats the same error. This reviewhttp://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920020110.do#PowerReview on the same website seems to confirm a complete lack of review or editing of the original manuscript. O'Reilly obviously is missing basic mechanisms for quality control. But the more interesting question is: are the opinions in this book about openEHR representative of a US view? - thomas On 12/02/2012 11:22, Michael Osborne wrote: I read the recently released O'Reilly book Meaningful Use and Beyond on Safari books today and found the following errors and some quite blatantly false statements about OpenEHR. Firstly is the claim by one of the authors, David Uhlman, that he was CTO of openEHR in 2001 - a claim which Thomas Beale denies. David Uhlman is CEO of ClearHealth, Inc., which created and supports ClearHealth, the first and only open source, meaningful use-certified, comprehensive, ambulatory EHR David entered health-care in 2001 as CTO for the OpenEHR project. One of the first companies to try commercializing open source healthcare systems , OpenEHR met face first with the difficult realities of bringing proven mainstream technologies into the complicated and some- times nonsensical world of healthcare. Secondly, a nonsensical statement about openEHR in the book... p.161 OpenGALEN and OpenEHR are both attempts to promote open source ontology con- cepts. Both of the projects have been maturing but some view these as unnecessary additions or alternatives to SNOMED+UMLS. However, they are available under open source licensing terms might make them a better alternative to SNOMED for certain jurisdictions. And this, p163... OpenEHR is a controversial approach to applying knowledge engineering principles to the entire EHR, including things like the user interfaces. You might think of Open- EHR as an ontology for EHR software design. Many health informaticists disagree on the usefulness of OpenEHR. Some believe that HL7 RIM, given its comprehensive nature, is the highest level to which formal clinical knowledge managing needs to go. I'm beginning to lose all respect for O'Reilly press. It's been all downhill since the camel book. Cheers Michael Osborne -- Michael Osborne ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.orgmailto:openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120213/7ae6d954/attachment.html
Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata
Comparing openEHR with SNOMED is plain wrong. Yes, part of the openEHR standard is an ontology of concepts, but this are high level concepts to model generic information structures, in the other hand SNOMED models fine grain concepts, with almost no structure. Certainly here is a place to collaboration since fine grain concepts could be use onside the generic model structures. So, here is no competition, is realy a good collaboration ground. Cheers,Pablo. Secondly, a nonsensical statement about openEHR in the book... p.161OpenGALEN and OpenEHR are both attempts to promote open source ontology con-cepts. Both of the projects have been maturing but some view these as unnecessaryadditions or alternatives to SNOMED+UMLS. However, they are available under open source licensing terms might make them a better alternative to SNOMED for certainjurisdictions. And this, p163... OpenEHR is a controversial approach to applying knowledge engineering principles to the entire EHR, including things like the user interfaces. You might think of Open-EHR as an ontology for EHR software design. Many health informaticists disagree onthe usefulness of OpenEHR. Some believe that HL7 RIM, given its comprehensive nature, is the highest level to which formal clinical knowledge managing needs to go. I'm beginning to lose all respect for O'Reilly press. It's been all downhill since the camel book. CheersMichael Osborne -- Michael Osborne ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120213/344e2b7f/attachment.html
Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata
I think we should strengthen arguments that Pablo proposed as promoters of openEHR in the U.S., with scientific arguments and constructive criticism openEHR initiative is and will be very competitive. Regards. Carlos. Carlos Luis Parra Calderon Hospital Universitario Virgen del Roc?o Enviado desde mi iPad El 13/02/2012, a las 15:46, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com mailto:pazospablo at hotmail.com escribi?: Comparing openEHR with SNOMED is plain wrong. Yes, part of the openEHR standard is an ontology of concepts, but this are high level concepts to model generic information structures, in the other hand SNOMED models fine grain concepts, with almost no structure. Certainly here is a place to collaboration since fine grain concepts could be use onside the generic model structures. So, here is no competition, is realy a good collaboration ground. Cheers, Pablo. Secondly, a nonsensical statement about openEHR in the book... p.161 OpenGALEN and OpenEHR are both attempts to promote open source ontology con- cepts. Both of the projects have been maturing but some view these as unnecessary additions or alternatives to SNOMED+UMLS. However, they are available under open source licensing terms might make them a better alternative to SNOMED for certain jurisdictions. And this, p163... OpenEHR is a controversial approach to applying knowledge engineering principles to the entire EHR, including things like the user interfaces. You might think of Open- EHR as an ontology for EHR software design. Many health informaticists disagree on the usefulness of OpenEHR. Some believe that HL7 RIM, given its comprehensive nature, is the highest level to which formal clinical knowledge managing needs to go. I'm beginning to lose all respect for O'Reilly press. It's been all downhill since the camel book. Cheers Michael Osborne -- Michael Osborne ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org mailto:openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org mailto:openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120213/d26e7335/attachment.html
Building software to convert HL7 v2/v3 messaging into archetypes templates
appreciated for any pointers. Thanks in advance for any help! --Wo -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120213/40335d9c/attachment.html
Building software to convert HL7 v2/v3 messaging into archetypes templates
Dear David, Thanks for the LinkEHR link especially you have a free version for testing. I think this is sort of tool that I am looking for to transform HL7, EN13606, X12, etc. into archtypes. There seems to be a number of LinkEHR video clips available on YouTube, that's great! Thanks! --Wo From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org] On Behalf Of David Moner Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:23 PM To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: Building software to convert HL7 v2/v3 messaging into archetypes templates Hello, Here at the Technical University of Valencia, we have been developing LinkEHR (www.linkehr.comhttp://www.linkehr.com) for the last six years and it seems to be exactly what you are looking for. LinkEHR Studio has two main functionalities: - It is a generic archetype editor, able of working with any reference model you import into it. We have worked with archetypes for openEHR, EN13606, HL7 CDA, CDISC ODM, MML and many others. - It is a data transformation tool based on archetypes. You can use an archetype and map it to a data source, defining the appropriate transformation functions and rules. Then the tools automatically generates an XQuery to transform existing XML data instances into XML extracts that follow the archetype and reference model rules. Although we have not worked directly with HL7 v2.x messages, it should be possible to work with them in their XML representation version. You just have to choose or define an archetype as target schema, import the HL7 XML message schema as source, and define the correspondences between those two. We have generated CDA documents based on this methodology, so v2.X messages should be even easier to manage. Contact us if you have any question. Best regards, David 2012/2/3 Chang, Wo L. wchang at nist.govmailto:wchang at nist.gov Dear All, I hope this is the right reflector First of all, thanks to those who developed tools, prepared tutorials, etc.!! I have spending the last few days playing around with the followings: * Java Reference Implementation of openEHR * LiU-Archtype-Editor-0.5.2 * Archtype Editor 2.2.779 * ADL 1.5 Workbench beta * Template Designer 2.6.1213.3 * Etc. Along with reading very good tutorials on: * Intro to openEHR, Sam Heard * Knowledge-enabled approach to eHealth records, Heather Leslie * Using Archtypes with HL7 Messages and Clinical Documents, Health Frankel * EN 13606-2 Gello - DCM, Andrew McIntyre * Etc. And openEHR stable specifications on: * Introducing openEHR * Architecture Overview * Etc. And ISO 13606 Part-1 and Part-2. I truly believe the archtype/template would be the right approach for my project on long-term management and preservation of EHRs. The Java ref. implementation libraries, Archtype Editor, Template Designer are great utils/tools. My basic question is: are there any public tools available to allow me to covert HL7 v2/v3 messaging to/from archtypes/templates as described in Health Frankel's tutorial on Using Archtypes with HL7 Messages and Clinical Documents? I know there is deep learning curve and would very much appreciated for any pointers. Thanks in advance for any help! --Wo ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.orgmailto:openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia - 46022 (Espa?a) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120213/e224e6e1/attachment.html
Building software to convert HL7 v2/v3 messaging into archetypes templates
Dear Paulo, That's great that you have your prototype working for the conversion! If any detail notes and/or codes that you can share, I'd be interested and much thanks in advance for your help. Best, --Wo From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Ferreira Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:13 PM To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: RE: Building software to convert HL7 v2/v3 messaging into archetypes templates Hello all, I'm working on my thesis project, which one of the components is EHRstorage in a openEHR repository. Since the input is HL7v2.x messages there isthe necessity of openEHR conversion. I think Heath remembers me, because Heath andChunlan helps me with this issue. I was capable to assemble a small prototypethat includes Mirth, which invokes a Java implementation environment to performthe conversion. The clinical data that that is present in an Unsolicited ObservationResult (ORU^R01) for instance, it's successfully converted, but withoutdemographic data, neither a patient identification instance. Can you give someclue about this topic? Best Regards, Paulo Ferreira. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120213/88628f08/attachment.html
13606 revisited - list proposal
administration, one ACTION could handle all the information, time series and data, for all the susbtance administrations for the same INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY). For example, a regular IV drug administration _could_ in theory be represented by an ACTION with a HISTORY, each of whose events described the action (say: admin Morphine 20 mg IV) but to achieve this you would have to wait until all the administrations were done before writing the data. So for some hours it would look like no drugs were being administered, then a long series of them would suddenly appear in the EHR stretching back... days? I can't see the difference with the current ACTION model: the ACTION could be created when the administration starts, and the date/time of that event could be written in INTERVAL_EVENT.time attribute, and when the administration ends, the duration could be written in the INTERVAL_EVENT.width. Maybe I'm missing something here, but that's whay I understand. I am not saying ACTION is perfect - there have been suggestions for example that an ACTION + link + OBSERVATION structure should be available for when the prescribed 'action' was in fact a new observation, such as 'check patient reaction to drug'. It would be nice to discuss this proposals with more members of the community. I'm not saying we need to do the changes, what I say is lets discuss if we can improve the model in some way, analize the pros and cons, and write down a decision. I mean: we need to try to not leave these kind of discussions die on the maillist, this things are valuable assets that could be explored/exploted in the future. Another question of time comes up with EVALUATION - e.g. the diagnosis archetype. This is full of times, and tries to follow a disease course model. Currently there is no RM class for this, but if a standardised temporal disease model were agreed across medicine, I suppose there is no reason why not. But it also is not a simple HISTORY - it is more 'bumpy'... and I don't know if there is any agreed standard model of this. Maybe is something like a HISTORYENTRY or a HISTORYCOMPOSITION? Thanks a lot for sharing,Kind regards,Pablo. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120213/7247d0d2/attachment.html
