Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas for the future)

[pablo pazos]

Hi Ian,
> I think we could probably agree the core training requirements quite
> quickly but the real problem is how any certification process could be
> policed and funded. Who trains the trainers, who checks that they are
> delivering the core content?
I think we could break down the problem into certification for students (what 
they have learned) and certification for trainers (who is validated by the 
foundation to give quality courses). E.g. a not certificated trainer could make 
a course for students to study for the certification evaluation, and if they 
pass, they receive a certification (as students). What is certified here is the 
evaluation process, not the course itself. The course and the evaluation could 
be different things, like in english courses (here we pay for a course, and if 
we want the certificate, we pay for the exam).
Obviously, a course given by a certified trainer could be more costly than a 
course given by a not-certified trainer, but students from both courses could 
be certified because de evaluation process is the same, and is supported by 
openEHR.org. I totally agree that certification processes should have a fee for 
the foundation, but I think the current funding model should change in order to 
do that (I participated in a discussion not so long ago where we discuss about 
funding and governance 
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Community+Governance).

> In Ocean we certainly have a set of core
> training materials but these are adapted and amended for every
> specific customer - the requirements for a clinical audience is
> somewhat different from a technical audience or mixed audience and
> time avaialble differs half-day, one day, three day?? ...  and again
> for a vendor client vs. a national organisation. If we have 'certified
> training', to what extent does that prevent us from adapting content
> for specific clients and circumstances - I know this is the case for
> some UK training certification processes. it is one thing to specify
> the core requirements but quite another to ensure that these are being
> properly adhered to.
> 
> I think the only suggestion I would have for your tool chain diagram
> is that with ADL1.5 I think we will have the same tool for archetypes
> and semantic templates i.e non-GUI. We will also need mapping tools
> for mesage integration and requirements integration and an AQL editing
> tool.
About the tool chain, I've joined archetype and template editors 
(semantic/structural artifacts), looking forward the new specs, and there is 
another tool for GUI template edition.I totally agree with the inclusion of 
AQL/a-path/other querying mechanisms/formalisms and message tools should be 
included on the chain.
Kind regards,Pablo.
> 
> Ian
> 
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> office +44 (0)1536 414 994
> fax +44 (0)1536 516317
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> skype ianmcnicoll
> ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com
> 
> Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK
> Director/Clinical Knowledge Editor openEHR Foundation  
> www.openehr.org/knowledge
> Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
> SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland
> BCS Primary Health Care  www.phcsg.org
> 
> 
> 
> On 5 January 2012 15:38, pablo pazos  wrote:
> > 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/E-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

Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas for the future)

[Heather Leslie]

Congratulations to you and your team, Pablo,

 

A great achievement. It is so pleasing to see you so active and involved.

 

I absolutely endorse your desire to get some quality certification behind
any openEHR training. 

 

In my opinion it should be done under the auspice of the Foundation, and
given the changes anticipated perhaps this will be something that can be
part of the new Board?s vision, but this is definitely not a trivial task.

 

As a community, I would love to see us start taking some of the initial baby
steps to work towards this, mindful that a fully accredited program will
likely take time and significant resources.

 

My reservations reiterate largely Ian?s comments ? we have done numerous
training programs over the past 5 years. Our training material has evolved
significantly to reflect the changes in tooling and development of
templates, querying, CKM etc to support the practical use and
implementation. While this is still in a state of significant flux, and it
is likely to be so for some years still, the training will be harder to
standardise, but will become gradually easier. In addition, each of our
training courses has been configured to reflect the needs/desires of the
attendees and this creates an additional overhead  that needs consideration.

 

Cheers

 

Heather

 

From: openehr-clinical-boun...@openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of pablo pazos
Sent: Friday, 6 January 2012 4:51 AM
To: openehr technical; openehr clinical
Subject: RE: Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (&
ideas for the future)

 

Hi everyone!

 

I've updated my post adding the students evaluation of the course:
<http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Finformatica-medica%2Eblog
spot%2Ecom%2F2012%2F01%2Fconclusiones-del-curso-de-openehr-en%2Ehtml&urlhash
=LzKZ&_t=tracking_disc> MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt
from "www.linkedin.com" claiming to be
http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/2012/01/conclusiones-del-curso-de-ope
nehr-en.html

For being the first edition, the evaluation was quite positive. But we still
have a lot of things to improve!

 

-- 
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

  _  

From: pazospa...@hotmail.com
To: openehr-clinical at openehr.org; openehr-technical at openehr.org;
openehr-implementers at openehr.org
Subject: Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas
for the future)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:14:41 -0300

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-ope
nehr-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 s

Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas for the future)

[pablo pazos]

Hi everyone!
There are great ideas here, but if we leave them on the list will be forgotten, 
so I've created a page on the wiki with some ideas from your emails: 
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/edu/Formalizing+education 
Feel free to edit the page to improve it.

Thanks a lot!

-- 
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
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas for the future)

[David Moner]

Hello all,

I can announce (we just got the confirmation for the funding last week)
that the Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) in collaboration with
the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) will organise a 20 hours
workshop about CEN/ISO 13606 next June/July at Belo Horizonte, in Brazil.
There are still many details to be decided, but I think it can be of
interest for many people in that region (the workshop will be in Spanish).

UPV has already given 5 courses about 13606 in Spain and 2 in Dublin and I
completely agree with the general feeling. It is very complicated to find a
balance between the technical and the clinical details for an heterogeneous
group (which is the usual case), but at the end then is when we learn more,
by sharing views from clinical and technical attendants. I also agree that
some kind of adaptation is needed for each case, but I don't think this is
a big problem. Most of the course topics can usually be maintained.

Apart from these activities of UPV, I'm currently the chair of the
Education Committee at the EN 13606 Association. One of the objectives of
the Association is to provide training and develop a certification process
for competences on the use of the norm. It is clear that these activities
have a great overlap with those related to openEHR, and we should work for
an alignment here (as for the specifications themselves :-). Probably, the
competences for a CEN/ISO 13606 user/implementer and for an openEHR
user/implementer are more than 75% the same. My intention is to present a
Training and Certification Plan for CEN/ISO 13606 at the Association
General Assembly next February in Seville. All of you are invited to
participate in any of these activities and I will be happy to share and
discuss our approach in this topic.

Regards,
David


2012/1/3 pablo pazos 

>  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 
>
> ___

Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas for the future)

[Ian McNicoll]

Hi Pablo,

I think we could probably agree the core training requirements quite
quickly but the real problem is how any certification process could be
policed and funded. Who trains the trainers, who checks that they are
delivering the core content? In Ocean we certainly have a set of core
training materials but these are adapted and amended for every
specific customer - the requirements for a clinical audience is
somewhat different from a technical audience or mixed audience and
time avaialble differs half-day, one day, three day?? ...  and again
for a vendor client vs. a national organisation. If we have 'certified
training', to what extent does that prevent us from adapting content
for specific clients and circumstances - I know this is the case for
some UK training certification processes. it is one thing to specify
the core requirements but quite another to ensure that these are being
properly adhered to.

I think the only suggestion I would have for your tool chain diagram
is that with ADL1.5 I think we will have the same tool for archetypes
and semantic templates i.e non-GUI. We will also need mapping tools
for mesage integration and requirements integration and an AQL editing
tool.

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
office +44 (0)1536 414 994
fax +44 (0)1536 516317
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
skype ianmcnicoll
ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com

Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK
Director/Clinical Knowledge Editor openEHR Foundation ?www.openehr.org/knowledge
Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland
BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org



On 5 January 2012 15:38, pablo pazos  wrote:
> 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/E-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 :
>> > 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
>> >

Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas for the future)

[pablo pazos]

Hi everyone!
I've updated my post adding the students evaluation of the course: 
http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/2012/01/conclusiones-del-curso-de-openehr-en.htmlFor
 being the first edition, the evaluation was quite positive. But we still have 
a lot of things to improve!
-- 
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

From: pazospa...@hotmail.com
To: openehr-clinical at openehr.org; openehr-technical at openehr.org; 
openehr-implementers at openehr.org
Subject: Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas   
for the future)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:14:41 -0300







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-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/20120105/9bd61c04/attachment.html>

Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas for the future)

[pablo pazos]

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/E-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 :
> > 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.
> >
> &

Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas for the future)

[pablo pazos]

Hi Rene,
> 
> Hi Pablo,
> 
> > 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.
> > If we reach a standard minimal program for openEHR courses ...
> 
>  From experiences with an another standard (HL7) based training courses 
> I'd say it may be hard to reach consensus as to what the minimum should 
> be - there is a fair amount of difference between various countries, as 
> well as how one structures a (set of) training courses [e.g. 1 long one, 
> an introductory and an advanced], and the target audience [e.g. 
> clinical, hardcore programmers without any clinical knowledge].
> 
I know it will be difficult to reach consensus, but it's not impossible. 
Firstly, I think we (trainers) need to sit down and talk about what we think 
and what we want to do in/with our courses, until now I have not seen any 
discusions about how to standarize openEHR training and I've been in the 
openEHR community since 2006, and maybe this initiative could have a good 
outcome and be beneficial to the community.
Now we see many demands of the e-health community, from openEHR software tools, 
to openEHR training (there is place for everyone!), and I think we need to make 
a smart move as a community, because these are spreading & adoption 
opportunities for openEHR as a standard.
In my case, I think a openEHR course should include the core element: the dual 
model (IM+AM), at an "above basic" level, something to help students understand 
the concepts and let them continue investigating after the course ending. To do 
so, we need to include basic tooling use (I've included the use of the AR, 
ADLWB and our EHRGen). Maybe that is enough for a clinical modeler profile, but 
for a developer is not, they need to understand what to implement in software 
and in wich way. For that I've created a class on "how to implement openEHR in 
an information system", and I included two approaches: the binding approach 
(used by Opereffa project) and the autogeneration approach (used by the EHRGen 
framework). An introductory level course could leave out the tooling chapter.
> In general the most useful thing for all concerned is probably for the 
> standards organization to make a statement like "we know that trainer X 
> provides good quality training courses" [this aids the trainer in 
> selling the training course, it aids the prospective attendee as a 
> statement of quality, and it aids the standardization body because it 
> has a known list of educators it can refer to]. Determining who provides 
> a good quality training course may not always be that easy to quantify, 
> but in these relatively small standardization communities (whether 
> openEHR, HL7, DICOM, IHE, etcetera) the nomination for approval can be 
> backed up / seconded (or the reverse: "thumbed down") by other known 
> active volunteers.
For this community this is very difficult to evaluate, e.g. right now I think 
I'm the only guy doing an spanish openEHR course, and maybe I'm terrible as a 
trainer, but there's nobody else to compare with. Obviously, I could show the 
student's evaluation of my performance on the course, but I'm more concerned 
about giving a better course (and maybe an openEHR certification) to my 
students than comparing me with other trainers, since I want to collaborate 
with them to agree on some topics and ways of evaluation. I know that maybe 
this is not the way of SDOs, but I believe this should be the openEHR way.
I really want to get consensus and work on this subject in 2012 with anyone who 
want's to collabotare to improve openEHR training.
Does anyone think that a openehr-trainers mail list would be helpful to focus 
the discussion on those subjects?
Kind regards,Pablo.
> 
> TTYL,
> 
> -Rene
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rene Spronk Cell: +31 (0)655 363 446
> Senior ConsultantFax: +31 (0)318 548 090
> Ringholm bv  The Netherlands
> http://www.ringholm.com  mailto:Rene.Spronk at ringholm.com
> twitter:@Ringholmskype:rene_ringholm
> Ringholm is registered at   the Amsterdam KvK reg.# 30155695
> 
> Ringholm bv - Making Standards Work - Courses and consulting
> ___
> 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: 

Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas for the future)

[Shinji KOBAYASHI]

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 :
> 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

Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas for the future)

[Rene Spronk (Ringholm)]

Hi Pablo,

> 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.
> If we reach a standard minimal program for openEHR courses ...

 From experiences with an another standard (HL7) based training courses 
I'd say it may be hard to reach consensus as to what the minimum should 
be - there is a fair amount of difference between various countries, as 
well as how one structures a (set of) training courses [e.g. 1 long one, 
an introductory and an advanced], and the target audience [e.g. 
clinical, hardcore programmers without any clinical knowledge].

In general the most useful thing for all concerned is probably for the 
standards organization to make a statement like "we know that trainer X 
provides good quality training courses" [this aids the trainer in 
selling the training course, it aids the prospective attendee as a 
statement of quality, and it aids the standardization body because it 
has a known list of educators it can refer to]. Determining who provides 
a good quality training course may not always be that easy to quantify, 
but in these relatively small standardization communities (whether 
openEHR, HL7, DICOM, IHE, etcetera) the nomination for approval can be 
backed up / seconded (or the reverse: "thumbed down") by other known 
active volunteers.

TTYL,

-Rene

-- 

Rene Spronk Cell: +31 (0)655 363 446
Senior ConsultantFax: +31 (0)318 548 090
Ringholm bv  The Netherlands
http://www.ringholm.com  mailto:Rene.Spronk at ringholm.com
twitter:@Ringholmskype:rene_ringholm
Ringholm is registered at   the Amsterdam KvK reg.# 30155695

Ringholm bv - Making Standards Work - Courses and consulting

Outcomes & conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish (& ideas for the future)

[pablo pazos]

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
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: