Wayne Wilson wrote:
>
>
> example is
> the entire suite of PKI related standards.
>
> (Yeah, I know that this e-mail is digitally signed using PKI technology.
> But how useful is it to nearly anyone who gets it? I was doing
> inter-operability tests preparatory to a wide spread Hospital
> PKI imple
On Dec 3, 2006, at 5:19 AM, openhealth@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> fostering the development of open standards, not condemning them. I
> fully agree that standards must be implemented, even have multiple
> interoperable implementations from different code bases. But it would
> be illogical to toss
In the end, openEHR and archetypes are just an effort to systematize a
solution to some of the many many problems in the e-health domain -
that's our offering to this community. We will do everything needed to
help people understand and use them. The community here might consider
using them
Tim.Churches wrote:
>
> Sure, I don't have any problem with that - I agree that a mapping
> framework is a good idea. However whether the archetypes framework and
> ADL is overkill for such a purpose of mapping codes and concept to one
> another really depends on additional utility of the archet
Thomas Beale wrote:
> Tim.Churches wrote:
> > Thomas Beale wrote:
> > > Alvin B. Marcelo wrote:
> > > > I agree with Heitzso. ICD-10 suffers from 'usability' issues. Yet
> > > > unlike the better systems (ie,
> > > > SNOMED) it is freely accessible.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps OSHCA can
Tim.Churches wrote:
> Thomas Beale wrote:
> > Alvin B. Marcelo wrote:
> > > I agree with Heitzso. ICD-10 suffers from 'usability' issues. Yet
> > > unlike the better systems (ie,
> > > SNOMED) it is freely accessible.
> > >
> > > Perhaps OSHCA can make a statement making ICD-10 the 'least c
Tim.Churches wrote:
> Thomas Beale wrote:
> > Alvin B. Marcelo wrote:
> > > I agree with Heitzso. ICD-10 suffers from 'usability' issues. Yet
> > > unlike the better systems (ie,
> > > SNOMED) it is freely accessible.
> > >
> > > Perhaps OSHCA can make a statement making ICD-10 the 'l
Thomas Beale wrote:
> Alvin B. Marcelo wrote:
> > I agree with Heitzso. ICD-10 suffers from 'usability' issues. Yet
> > unlike the better systems (ie,
> > SNOMED) it is freely accessible.
> >
> > Perhaps OSHCA can make a statement making ICD-10 the 'least common
> > denominator' together w
In short ICDx is a classification; Snomed-ct is (an attempt at) a
descriptive ontology.
- thomas beale
SPONSORED LINKS
Software distribution
Salon software
Alvin B. Marcelo wrote:
> I agree with Heitzso. ICD-10 suffers from 'usability' issues. Yet
> unlike the better systems (ie,
> SNOMED) it is freely accessible.
>
> Perhaps OSHCA can make a statement making ICD-10 the 'least common
> denominator' together with the
> caveats and recommendations
Joseph Dal Molin wrote:
> ...some thoughts...
>
> What would standardizing on ICD-10 mean in the context of an
> organization such as OSHCA given the reality the heterogenous landscape
> of ICD adoption... what would this mean in real practice? What would
> this imply for those systems using I
Alvin B. Marcelo wrote:
> First thread:
>
> I propose we standardize on ICD-10 (as a minimum). It's an
> international standard anyway (albeit
> difficult to use). This of course does not preclude the others from
> using SNOMED if they can
> afford to do so.
>
> That being the case, OSHCA can
information systems provide support and
> facilities for the use of particular classification systems in
> particular circumstances and settings. Perhaps a set of guidelines using
> a better developed version of the nascent framework (if you can call it
> that) set out above? Anyone want to c
9-0023
---
_
De: openhealth@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Em nome
de Tim Churches
Enviada em: sábado, 13 de maio de 2006 20:44
Para: openhealth@yahoogroups.com
Assunto: Re: [openhealth] Standards -- more questions
l (see http://www.biomedcentral.com)?
Tim C
> - Original Message
> From: Heitzso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: openhealth@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 10:33:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [openhealth] Standards -- more questions
>
> I do *strongly* recomm
6 AM
Subject: Re: [openhealth] Standards -- more questions
I do *strongly* recommend researching human engineering studies
re determine whether a fine granularity such as is provided by ICD-10,
which may be very accurate from a technical point of view, does, in
practice, provide more accur
Hi Alvin,
"Agreeing on common standards" is much more complex than meets the eye.
Have you seen this health IT standards directory by the National
Alliance for Health Information Technology? http://www.nahit.org/hitsdir/
The Standards Directory is part of the "Alliance's drive to accelerate
ICD-10 has tried to be more accurate in making the diagnosis, thereby going into great detail, with the obvious effects of bloat.
The ICD-10 -PCS is taking quite the opposite way of doing things, but could be difficult to get people to use it for this reason. They will not have their favorite
Alvin B. Marcelo wrote:
> First thread:
>
> I propose we standardize on ICD-10 (as a minimum). It's an international
> standard anyway (albeit
> difficult to use). This of course does not preclude the others from using SNOMED
> if they can
> afford to do so.
ICD-10 and SNOMED-CT are differen
Molly Cheah wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be control of its use. Information (unofficial) of
> its copy rights by WONCA is here
> http://www.ulb.ac.be/esp/wicc/copyright-en.html
>
> You can download the electronic version of ICPC2 from here.
> http://www.ulb.ac.be/esp/wicc/ceo.html
>
> When w
> What would standardizing on ICD-10 mean in the context of an
> organization such as OSHCA given the reality the heterogenous landscape
> of ICD adoption... what would this mean in real practice? What would
> this imply for those systems using ICD - 9 for example? Would it be more
>
Yes, I didn't mean to say OSHCA should go on developing standards. I think the better phrase is
'to implement open standards using open source software'.
Proceeding with open source software development without agreements in common standards can even
speed up the fragmentation the current infor
I agree with Heitzso. ICD-10 suffers from 'usability' issues. Yet unlike the better systems (ie,
SNOMED) it is freely accessible.
Perhaps OSHCA can make a statement making ICD-10 the 'least common denominator' together with the
caveats and recommendations as cited by Heitzso?
--- Heitzso <[E
I do *strongly* recommend researching human engineering studies
re determine whether a fine granularity such as is provided by ICD-10,
which may be very accurate from a technical point of view, does, in
practice, provide more accuracy than a lower granularity encoding.
If such a study does not e
David Forslund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes. Let us decide which of these nationally decided ones we should support.
Regards
Nanda Gunaratne
It isn't clear to me the role that OSHCA can/should play in the
standards world. It might be useful
for the community to agree on th
This is the ideal. But if the differences between the two are substantial, it could be a lot of work. IDC-9 was never made for electronic medical records - just paper. I am not sure if ICD-10 is, but it is more likely to be electronically usable. ICD-10-PCS on the other hand was made exclusive
"Alvin B. Marcelo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any thoughts about that statement? Can we actually call a standard open if there are limitations
to its implementation by FOSS?
No. Unless the limitation is due to the laziness of the FOSS developers ;-)
Nanda Gunaratne
alvin
> even more important is to provide mappings between coding systems, since
> not everyone will ever use the
> same coding system.
... rant/ramble follows from an old hot-button,
feel free to discard now and not read ...
I agree that everyone will not use the same coding system,
and tha
James Busser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is the way it is and multiple licences are necessary depending on the number of users. Maybe things have changed recently?
Nanda Gunaratne
On May 11, 2006, at 8:23 AM, David Forslund wrote:
> In the US (and UK) SNOMED-CT is freely a
It isn't clear to me the role that OSHCA can/should play in the
standards world. It might be useful
for the community to agree on things that "everyone" will support, but
that alone doesn't make it a "standard".
Standards my be dictated by national entities or other bodies outside
the contr
...some thoughts...
What would standardizing on ICD-10 mean in the context of an
organization such as OSHCA given the reality the heterogenous landscape
of ICD adoption... what would this mean in real practice? What would
this imply for those systems using ICD - 9 for example? Would it be
On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 04:42 -0500, Alvin B. Marcelo wrote:
[KSB] <...snip...>
> Second thread:
>
> An interesting insight I got at the last Regional Conference in Open
> Standards sponsored by NECTEC
> and IOSN in Bangkok (May 2-4) -- an Intel smployee (Danese)
> emphasized that open standa
First thread:
I propose we standardize on ICD-10 (as a minimum). It's an international standard anyway (albeit
difficult to use). This of course does not preclude the others from using SNOMED if they can
afford to do so.
That being the case, OSHCA can also 'standardize' on the preferred mappi
There doesn't seem to be control of its use. Information (unofficial) of
its copy rights by WONCA is here
http://www.ulb.ac.be/esp/wicc/copyright-en.html
You can download the electronic version of ICPC2 from here.
http://www.ulb.ac.be/esp/wicc/ceo.html
When we started using it 6 years ago, we
As far as I know, the 'owners' of ICPC enforce a levy on its use.
Is anyone from WONCA in this list?
Is it a fact that SNOMED is free for use even in developing countries?
--- James Busser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 11, 2006, at 8:23 AM, David Forslund wrote:
>
> > In the US
On May 11, 2006, at 8:23 AM, David Forslund wrote:
> In the US (and UK) SNOMED-CT is freely available. Do folks use the
> ICPC-2 spec? If so what do you all think of it?
I thought it was only available freely within geographic boundaries
and, within that, possibly only to members of ce
In the US (and UK) SNOMED-CT is freely available. Do folks use the
ICPC-2 spec? If so what do you all think of it?
Dave
Nandalal Gunaratne wrote:
>
>
> "Alvin B. Marcelo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are quite right. Interoperability depends in turn on the agreement
> on standards. C
I like OpenEHR a lot, but it is not a standards body. ASTM is (in the
US anyway). OpenEHR needs to be able to support the
various standards out there. CCR is rather simple and I'm sure rather
trivial for OpenEHR to support. It is trivial for OpenEMed
to support it, for example, with no
David Forslund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The coding system standards in the US have been specified by CHI. We
should share coding systems, but
even more important is to provide mappings between coding systems, since
not everyone will ever use the
same coding system. OSS could lead
"Alvin B. Marcelo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You are quite right. Interoperability depends in turn on the agreement on standards. Coding systems included.
Unfortunately the best nomenclature coding system is SNOMED-CT which is a proprietary product. But I am sure the new versions of the
Alvin B. Marcelo wrote:
> > Tell me where I can find something of the Phillipine RUV system for
> procedures?
>
> http://www.philhealth.gov.ph/download/RVS2003.pdf
What is the meaning of the RVU column in this document?
Someone needs to do a mapping of this to one of the other UMLS data models
> Tell me where I can find something of the Phillipine RUV system for procedures?
http://www.philhealth.gov.ph/download/RVS2003.pdf
> If you are using ICD-10 for disease codes you could have used the ICD-10-PCS (Procedure Coding
System).
I agree, but you see, I do not make the call regardin
Hi Alvin,
Tell me where I can find something of the Phillipine RUV system for procedures? If you are using ICD-10 for disease codes you could have used the ICD-10-PCS (Procedure Coding System).
Interoperability is not something to do with just using the same coding systems though...
Tha
As most of you know by now, OpenEMed uses a service oriented architecture
based on the OMG PIDS/COAS/RAD/LQS standards, with PIDS using
by default the HL7 2.3 PID segment of patient identification. COAS uses
various HL7 codes for observations (or any other coding system that is
available).
L
In Canada we are watching closely the development of
standards from the Canada Health Infoway. I sit on
their Lab Standards group. Messaging standard will
most likely be HL7v3 and terminology standard will
likely be a combination of LOINC and SNOMED-CT.
David
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
Hi all,
I'm collating standards (open or otherwise) that are being used in open
source health applications.
I'd appreciate if the developers on the list would explicitly publish what
standards they base their applications on and perhaps we can establish
interoperability from thereon.
For CHIT
46 matches
Mail list logo
