sauermann at technikum-wien.at
Wed Aug 22 04:11:35 EDT 2012
Dear Sam, all,
I am fully aware of the openEHR efforts, CKM etc. I agree that these are
platforms are required !!! to get the work done.
My point is that interoperability will only work for users / systems who
are represented in the discussions. Those who engage and agree on
harmonised solutions will have interoperability. "The rest of the world"
are not represented, they do not discuss. We cannot solve their problems
for them. The "rest of the world" will therefore not have
interoperability (with us) without further work.
Limiting the scope to a certain user group and a use case will make
harmonisation crisp and easier. We can focus on solutions for those who
are represented in the discussions and get those going. We can then
prove and disseminate to "the rest of the world" that this works
elegantly with little effort for a certain purpose in a certain
community. Our experience in Austria is that "the rest of the world"
will notice and jump on the train. The train needs to be there before
anybody will jump on.
(I do admit that we do not see the complete "rest of the world" on our
Austrian trains. But there is an audience and there is international
cooperation with relevant groups elsewhere.)
(Online tools are fine. In my experience however harmonisation work is
successful if you have at least a few face to face meetings at the
start, but that is another story, does not belong here.)
Greetings from Vienna,
Biomedical Engineering Sciences (Master)
University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien
Hoechstaedtplatz 5, 1200 Vienna, Austria
P: +43 1 333 40 77 - 988
M: +43 664 6192555
E: stefan.sauermann at technikum-wien.at
Am 21.08.2012 23:02, schrieb Sam Heard:
> Hi Stefan
> You are now getting to the nub of what we are trying to do in openEHR.
> Actually the modelling of clinical content is a change agent itself.
> Our hope is to do this on CKM or the like and not need the sitting part.
> Cheers, Sam
> On 22/08/2012 4:20 AM, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
>> If you want to be interoperable to "the rest of the world", you will
>> have to sit together with all of them, agree on the information you
>> want to share in which situation, on how it is packed for
>> communication and write this up in an agreement.
>> Before that day, there will be no safe interoperability without human
>> brains checking each exchange thoroughly, asking back in case of doubt.
>> There will only be interoperability with those who agreed beforehand.
>> Hope this helps, greetings from Vienna,
>> Stefan Sauermann
>> Gerard Freriks <gfrer at luna.nl> schrieb:
>> But what to do with the rest of the world that continues to use
>> the term diagnosis meaning something else?
>> Gerard Freriks
>> +31 620347088
>> gfrer at luna.nl <mailto:gfrer at luna.nl>
>> On 20 Aug 2012, at 16:30, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>>>> and panic attacks/hyper ventilation. These were my inferences
>>>> about the
>>>> process inside the patient system.
>>>>> Only one was true and had to found out via trial and error
>>>> and trial treatments. I fear that the best we can do in most
>>>> (as GP) is to code 'Reasons for ..' and do not use the word
>>>> diagnosis too
>>>> Isn't that what we call 'differential diagnosis'?
>>>> Anyhow. I agree that these DD or reasons for should be
>>>> seperated and
>>>> clearly distinctable from the 'final' diangosis, preferably
>>>> based on facts and
>>> "final" diagnoses mainly exist with the field of pathology/the
>> openEHR-clinical mailing list
>> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-clinical