lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

Koray Atalag k.atalag at nihi.auckland.ac.nz
Wed Oct 3 20:02:53 EDT 2012

Hi Gerard,
I think getting the content model is absolutely right - no one can argue
But with due respect I disagree with you about the difference. I seriously think standards defining clinical content should converge (not even harmonise).
I had the privilege of spending some time with Ed Hammond in NZ and was convinced that this is what is needed. Mappings are different and certainly a blackhole.
That said EN13606 Association's mission and role is paramount in terms of contextualising "exchange" within the European context.

We chose to use openEHR for defining the Interoperability standards in New Zealand as we are very mindful of the fact that this formalism has been defined and carried on for many years by this group; and it IS naturally the leading edge with proven track in implementation (one of which is my own work). I think W3C is a good example of how important it is to have a single approach in contrast to the situation in health IT. These might sound a bit strong but it is what I believe. I acknowledge lack of organisational capacity and skills in past though.



From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Freriks
Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2012 11:26 a.m.
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
Cc: Openehr-Technical
Subject: Re: lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

I just care about getting one model....

In the case of 13606 one good model that describes a generic interface for EHR communication, also, for communication with other proprietary EHR solutions.
In the case of openEHR one good model that describes one particular implementation of an EHR-system.

This difference is something the EN1366 Association cares about.

Gerard Freriks

EN13606 Association
p/a Huigsloterdijk 378
2158 LR Buitenkaag
The Netherlands

M:            +31 620347088
E:     g<mailto:gfrer at luna.nl>erard.freriks at EN13606.org<mailto:erard.freriks at EN13606.org>
W:           http:www.en13606.org

On 4 Oct 2012, at 00:02, Thomas Beale wrote:

On 13/09/2012 10:15, David Moner wrote:
2012/9/13 Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se<mailto:erik.sundvall at liu.se>>
It would be great if e.g most of the future ISO 13606 version could be a true subset of openEHR instead of the current confusing situation.

This is something I discussed with Thomas some time ago, it would be one of the best harmonisation solutions, but probably with a slightly different interpretation. Since 13606 has more generic classes (eg. the generic ENTRY can represent all of OBSERVATION, EVALUATION, INSTRUCTION, ACTION), instead of 13606 being a subset of openEHR I think that openEHR should be a specialized model of 13606. Obviously this would require a deep analysis and changes of the models, but that could be the idea.

I don't care about the linguistics of subset / specialisation etc, I just care about getting one model....

- thomas

Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088
gfrer at luna.nl<mailto:gfrer at luna.nl>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121004/48970968/attachment.html>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list