When it necessary and defendable data can be collected and used.
Explicitly kinds of data and organisations are mentioned that can store more
data than most others.
Healthcare and political parties are examples special catagories.
Clause 53 deals with health and care
Gerard
https://www.gdpr.ass
Dear Karsten,
The GDPR allows the collection of health data.
The GDPR restricts itself to person identifiable data and it secondary
use/abuse of privacy rights.
Since health and care are about all of society, all of life, all must be able
to be documented.
No restrictions.
So I disagree with:
On 27-06-18 16:43, Philippe Ameline wrote:
1) you can find a bunch of practitioners that agree on working extra
hours to comment a big bunch of images, or
Did I tell you about the plant-app? I believe I did. 700.000 pictures
are reviewed, often by volunteers.
The app recognizes 16000 plants.
On 27-06-18 18:55, Anastasiou A. wrote:
openEHR goes back to 1994 and its ideas are starting to become more widely
known in the last few years.
It is true, especially thanks to the good work of Marand but also others.
As long as it is not part of medical school training, I do not think the
>>> Semantics is also something in the eye of the beholder.
>> That's what I would be worried about.
>> If that company's archetypes were not derived by the bigger conceptual
>> model, it would only make sense to its ecosystem.
> You can always map them to structures FHIR requires, and that is ac
On 27-06-18 17:12, Anastasiou A. wrote:
A few notes:
You cannot specialise the Blood Pressure Archetype to express anything other
than blood pressure as far as I am aware.
I am not sure about that, but it is not important in how I think about it.
Because the micro-archetypes contain valid pa
A few notes:
>>You cannot specialise the Blood Pressure Archetype to express anything other
>>than blood pressure as far as I am aware.
> I am not sure about that, but it is not important in how I think about it.
> Because the micro-archetypes contain valid paths, they can be queried.
> A compan
Bert, I don't think that we really disagree there. As you nail it the
dataset comes from people agreeing on building it the proper way. And
agreeing with Karsten (who is plainly right), doesn't make that process
simple.
Means that wether:
1) you can find a bunch of practitioners that agree on work
On 27-06-18 15:14, Anastasiou A. wrote:
Not as “fact”, it is probably how I expressed it, this is my
understanding so far and I would not mind it being corrected if wrong.
>It is an archetype, it is written in ADL following the ADL-syntax, it
is processable by AOM, it consists of datatypes
Dear Bert,
Always happy to keep a discussion open and I appreciate your input. I'm
sure achieving the kind of agility without introducing the problems I
mentioned would be of interest to many people, so by all means feel free to
make suggestions.
The market is a commercial dynamic. It is true tha
Not as “fact”, it is probably how I expressed it, this is my understanding so
far and I would not mind it being corrected if wrong.
>It is an archetype, it is written in ADL following the ADL-syntax, it is
>processable by AOM, it consists of datatypes from the reference model.
That is the fir
Thanks for your reply, Anastasiou,
I disagree with some opinions you express as fact.
On 27-06-18 14:21, Anastasiou A. wrote:
I think that this is the bit that causes the “friction” J
“Archetype” is not a “value”. It is a type.
It is an archetype, it is written in ADL following the ADL-synta
>The same things you have to do when you need to handle a generated archetype.
>But it will not be that hard. Don't expect much complexity from these
>generated archetypes.
>I called them before, micro-archetypes, containing only one datapoint, or a
>few closely related datapoints.
>With machine
Dear Seref, I do not agree with this without having explored all the
possibilities. I think it is important not to jump to conclusions and
keep the discussion open.
I have some ideas how to keep it interoperable. I like to discuss that
with an open mindset.
Talking about interoperability.
By
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:48:11PM +0200, Diego Boscá wrote:
> I assume that when Stefan says "all", he is referring to these extra data
> points, which can be identified and accepted (or not), even on a one-by-one
> basis if needed
That would, formally, fulfil the requirements :-)
Which, of cou
I assume that when Stefan says "all", he is referring to these extra data
points, which can be identified and accepted (or not), even on a one-by-one
basis if needed
2018-06-27 12:36 GMT+02:00 Karsten Hilbert :
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:28:30PM +0200, Diego Boscá wrote:
>
> > Technically it's
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:28:30PM +0200, Diego Boscá wrote:
> Technically it's ok if patients/citizens are aware of it (and willing to
> share it)
No, because the basic rule is that
everything is forbidden
except where
explicitely allowed
PLUS
Technically it's ok if patients/citizens are aware of it (and willing to
share it)
2018-06-27 12:18 GMT+02:00 Karsten Hilbert :
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:57:05AM +0200, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
>
> > I agree completely that it is not possible to know which information is
> > relevant, and that
I don't think this completely breaks openEHR. Even Thomas talks about how
many "data points" there are in the CKM right now. Probably we could
(re)use each one of these data points on their own, keeping their meaning.&
creating/reviewing them by using a modeling methodology.
2018-06-27 11:50 GMT+0
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:57:05AM +0200, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
> I agree completely that it is not possible to know which information is
> relevant, and that all information is better recorded just in case
Not that I like the fact but that is currently illegal under EU GDPR.
Karsten
--
GPG
Dear all,
please be assured that myself and many others here and elsewhere support
the need to record information, for the sake of treating patients, no
matter if there is an archetype or not.
Probably this discussion circles around the fact that "informatics"
types of persons always are look
Hi Bert,
Let me try to keep it brief: you seem to suggest breaking the openEHR
methodology. If you allow downstream actors (clinical systems, guided by
their users) create archetypes without going through the methodology, i.e.
creating, discussing, reviewing archetypes, you'll end up with computab
Hi Pablo!
I’ll try to answer your question about how clinical modellers solve this
problem. Have a look at the ACTION.medication archetype
(http://openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.123). This archetype has 11
separate steps for the ACTIVE state. In each medication management context, one
o
23 matches
Mail list logo
