Regarding the role of ITEM_STRUCTURE

Koray Atalag k.atalag at nihi.auckland.ac.nz
Sun Jul 8 05:47:43 EDT 2012


Hi,

I agree with Ian et al. that Archetypes, as a methodology, is not enough to enable interoperability by themselves. It is mostly dependent on the content of those Archetypes that will matter most - and the two(or multi)-level modelling approach just facilitates this by providing clinician-friendly but computable representation of health information. Since we don't use a holistic RIM from which all artefacts are derived from there's a huge degree of freedom for creating archetypes (including which data structures to choose from). Therefore we need firm control of content - which requires human agreement.

Cheers,

-koray



-----Original Message-----
From: openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Ian McNicoll
Sent: Monday, 25 June 2012 8:25 p.m.
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
Subject: Re: Regarding the role of ITEM_STRUCTURE

Hi Sam,

I actually did think Stefan was making an important point about clinical modelling. If I have understood Stefan's comments correctly , he is stating that in his experience interoperability is rarely possible without local negotiation, compromise and detailed understanding of the use case and shared requirements. That would also be my view, which is why I believe that while good definition and ontological analysis is helpful, it will never be possible to 'clean room' interoperability without directly involving the end-use
stakeholders: Interoperability is ultimately negotiated not designed.

The value of the archetype approach is in making this negotiation progressively possible without asking end-users to become embroiled in complex technical discussions. Complex and detailed clinical discussions will still be required but that is only to be expected.

Ian





On 24 June 2012 22:43, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote:
> Thanks Stefan
> This is a highly technical discussion and should not be on this list.
> Cheers, Sam
>
>
> On 22/06/2012 5:28 PM, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
>
> Hello eveybody!
> Looking at this discussion, the volume it is taking weighted against
> the visible progress I ask myself if this is an efficient way to reach
> harmonised conclusions.
>
> In our experience doing the national EHR standards and the lab report
> for Austria we noticed:
> - Once you reach a sufficient level of detail it is not possible to
> reach generic (one fits all) solutions within available timeframes.
> - Data models and their descriptions only started to work after all
> involved had agreed on a specific, crisp and clear definition of the usecase.
> - No information model / description did work for all thinkable usecases.
> - We had to tailor information models to specific usecases.
> - Then bridging from one use case into the other becomes a challenge,
> as subtle differences in the information will become an issue.
> - In order to bridge information from one specific use case into the
> other we typically need to define another specific usecase.
>
> I do not see the specific usecases you are referring to. I therefore
> can not contribute to or understand this discussion. Maybe I missed something.
> Sorry!
>
> Greetings from Vienna,
>
> Stefan Sauermann
>
> Program Director
> 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
>
> I: www.technikum-wien.at/mbe
> I: www.technikum-wien.at/ibmt
> I: www.healthy-interoperability.at
>
>
> Am 22.06.2012 09:29, schrieb Gerard Freriks:
>
> Yes.
>
> It all is about classifying.
> It is all about proper definitions we all share and use.
>
> I believe that when we all interpret the definitions in our own way in
> our own data bases all is working nicely.
>
> The moment we start to exchange this data we will discover that we are
> not interoperable, The moment we start to re-use data in clinical
> decision support service we will discover that all systems that worked
> so nicely, have become problems to connect.
>
> As EN13606 we work at full semantic interoperability as much as possible.
> So we have to define many things, we use to produce archetypes, properly.
> Don't we all have an obligation to make semantic interoperability possible?
>
>
> Gerard Freriks
> +31 620347088
> gfrer at luna.nl
>
>
>
>
> On 22 Jun 2012, at 02:45, Jussara wrote:
>
> Think the background of our discussions is about CLASSfying.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.opene
> hr.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.opene
> hr.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.opene
> hr.org



--
Dr Ian McNicoll
office +44 (0)1536 414 994
fax +44 (0)1536 516317
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
skype ianmcnicoll
ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com

Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK Director openEHR Foundation  www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care  www.phcsg.org

_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7275 (20120706) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7279 (20120707) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7279 (20120707) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com





More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list