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
> 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
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
