Distributed Records - An approach

Christopher Feahr wrote: >Thomas, >Thank you for the detailed comments. You mentioned WHO as a possible >world health information authority, but have they done anything like >this? > actually I have to admit I was being a bit facetious suggesting WHO, but then again, not sure how good the US-UN

HISTORY DATA SET IN EPR

Christopher Feahr wrote: >Thomas, >I'm curious to know if your comments are based on a review of SNOMED CT >or of ontology/terminology systems, in general? As you probably know, >SNOMED was designed expressly to support clinical information needs. > yes, but we have to be careful about what need

certification and verification of OpenEHR

Hi All, > --- (...) > Been off looking at some operational considerations associated > with supporting, maintaining and updating global EHRs. > The following types of users were considered: > 1)CREATORS > 2)REVIEWERS > 3)ADMINISTRATORS > 4)CERTIFIERS This idea of certification is not only

IS Models (was HISTORY DATA SET IN EPR)

Hi, >The clincial analysis process is pretty much standard all over and this will >find acceptability (hopefull). The data so captured can be used for a >descision support system. > >This is an add on to your thaughts and maybe you can now look at your >suggested solution in the light of what wou

Encoding concept-relationships in openehr archetypes.

Hello all, I recently had a little free time to read you: thank you for your work ! Thomas Beard gave me a brief archetype "short definition" (still in use ?). It was: "concepts defined by constraints". One formal remark: usually constraints (i.e. Horn clauses) can freely be added, so the model

certification and verification of OpenEHR

Christopher Feahr wrote: >this, of course, raises the issue of the certification of the >certifiers... i.e., where does the meta-certification-buck stop? In my >opinion, certification (that an application, record structure, message, >data elements, archetypes, etc. conform to a particular version

certification and verification of OpenEHR

this, of course, raises the issue of the certification of the certifiers... i.e., where does the meta-certification-buck stop? In my opinion, certification (that an application, record structure, message, data elements, archetypes, etc. conform to a particular version of "registered" standard) sho

IS Models (was HISTORY DATA SET IN EPR)

Thank you... this is becoming clearer from the clinical/business-process perspective. I still have this lingering concern about the inherent freedom and flexibility afforded by archetypes being somewhat in conflict with the need for interoperability. Let me see if I understand by reflecting a spe

certification and verification of OpenEHR

Patrick Lefebvre wrote: > Hi All, > > > --- (...) > > Been off looking at some operational considerations associated > > with supporting, maintaining and updating global EHRs. > > The following types of users were considered: > > 1)CREATORS > > 2)REVIEWERS > > 3)ADMINISTRATORS > > 4)CERTIFIERS > >

IS Models (was HISTORY DATA SET IN EPR)

Hi, When you build an information system, you have to create a solid structure in order to have people fill it with datas, just like a building is made of concrete, or steel or wood, but anyway stands up alone. Most information systems have a structure made of a database, openEHR is innovative

IS Models (was HISTORY DATA SET IN EPR)

Hello Philippe, What you are saying is correct. But let us review what christopher has already said and also reiterated in my previous mail. The objective is to have the clinicians needs fullfilled. A clinician is interested in the following. Does the application give me a user friendly interface.