I agree. Each technology / standard has its strengths (and weaknesses), and it
may be best to look at all of them and have a more harmonized / integrated
approach. This article (1st half) summarizes this quite well.
http://efasoft.blogspot.com/2010/12/toward-universal-exchange-language-for.htm
in Caregraf, we've been working in meaningful use (CCDs, CDA, HL7 RIM) for
the last year and use a pipeline that goes from a graph store (RDF) of
patient data into the government required CCDs. The process was recently
certified for meaningful use.
A quick compare and contrast between the CCD and
The PCAST did not take into consideration (maybe they don't even know)
there is an universal exchange language for healthcare. It is HL7 V3. The
CDA is merely one of virtually infinite structures that can be constructed
from the RIM. The meta information as well as the clinical data is
unambi
I fully agree with the statement that ' But seriously, Tim, if we were to
pursue this problem, we would need some form of unambiguous identifier for
"things"... and given the distributed nature of the biomedical domain, we'd
want to make sure that there was some way of resolving that identifier
Totally kidding, Mark. I guess my "sense of humor" is a bit too dry.
On Dec 14, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Mark wrote:
> Well... I defer to you on the richness... I am merely an "adherent" to the
> originally proposed technology... it was you and your collaborators who
> invented it!!
>
> Just pay
When I see this:
"Data Aggregation “Middleware”
An important feature of today’s environment is that there is relatively little
standardization in the health
data captured and stored by different providers of healthcare services.
Although a great deal of data
already exist in the form of claim
