Outcomes conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish ( ideas for the future)
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%2Ehtmlurlhash =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 source tools. On the clinical modeling side, we have engaged
Outcomes conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish ( ideas for the future)
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: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120106/110763fe/attachment.html
Outcomes conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish ( ideas for the future)
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 pazospablo at hotmail.com 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
Outcomes conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish ( ideas for the future)
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: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120105/f7d9cc3d/attachment.html
Outcomes conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish ( ideas for the future)
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 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
Outcomes conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish ( ideas for the future)
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 pazospablo at hotmail.com 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 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
Outcomes conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish ( ideas for the future)
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 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 http://twitter.com/ppazos ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list
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://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)
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)
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
Outcomes conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish ( ideas for the future)
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: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120103/b31f499a/attachment.html
