openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1

pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com
Mon Feb 24 18:20:16 EST 2014


Hi Ian, I think I'm trying to solve a problem that is two steps before the funding problem.

1. IMO the priority should be to define a criteria on the foundation, for minimum requirements to consider a training/educational proposal to be endorsed by the foundation.

2. Doing this we can get to the next step: the board validation of each training/educational proposal.

Considering that almost 100% of the board members are actively involved in training, defining the criteria (1.) is something relatively easy and IMO we don't need funding for that. If a proposal complies the criteria the we can go to the validation.
To validate proposals (2.) it might need more time of one or two board members. For doing this, who creates the proposal might pay a fee for the time of the reviewers, directly to them or through the foundation. Reviewing does not grant approval. Validation and approval might be a pre-instance to get endorsement by the foundation board. The foundation board should evaluate the validation and make the final approval.

IMO the fee paid for 2. should be based on the estimated income of the training/educational proposal.

Different kinds of endorsements / certifications should be issued to each proposal depending on the percentage of the training that is openEHR related. E.g. some courses include openEHR as one topic alongside with other 20, this might not be certified by the foundation but might be endorsed by it or at least supported by the foundation. In the other hand, courses 100% based on openEHR should be certified by the foundation.

Can we start defining the criteria (1.) to consider that a training proposal might be able to request evaluation for certification?

One small problem: since proposals will be locale-dependent not all board members will be capable of evaluating an ES or PT proposal. Anyone has an idea of how to solve that?
Maybe we should designate evaluators for each locale (?) If this is a good idea, we fall under the same problem: will the board designate those evaluators? with which criteria? (skills, knowledge, experience, community participation, ...)
A good step 0 might be that the board defines the criteria to designate evaluators and then evaluators get together to define the evaluation criteria then validate that with the board (????) 



-- 
Kind regards,
Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
http://cabolabs.com

From: ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:58:25 +0000
Subject: Re: openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1
To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org

Hi Pablo / Evelyn,
Some very good suggestions and proposals which I am sure the the Board would consider very carefully. There have been Board discussions about getting Training Certification established via an Academic Partnership group, but finding someone with the bandwidth to take this on has been difficult.


My main concern is resource and funding. Everyone has to remember that the Foundation currently operates with zero income stream, and even when we start to get Industry Partners membership fees, these will be tightly ring-fenced to support API / RM / tooling development.


It would be nice to think that the Foundation has resources to 'invest' in training certification but I do not see any immediate prospect of that being a reality. The only way that it is going to happen is if some individual / organisation sees setting up and running a training certification (endorsed by the Foundation) as a business opportunity.


I agree with Evelyn that this is not a trivial task, particularly trying to work on a global basis, with appropriate governance structures and making sure that the system works fairly. It would have to work so that the Certifying body took some sort of percentage of course fees but would need quite a bit of investment of time and money to set up.


I am not wholly convinced, at this point, that there is a big enough market in openEHR training (or enough providers) to make this a viable business, at least as a global activity. If there is local/regional interest, it might be possible to have training certification run on a regional basis, under the auspices of Localisation groups. This can also take advantage of local training certification/governance arrangements e.g in the UK there are some very tentative discussions to establish openEHR certification under the auspices of one of the UK Health informatics professional bodies. That seems to me much more managable.


In summary, if a proposal for a global openEHR training certification service was received by the Board, I am sure it would be looked on favourably, but I am pretty certain it would need to be self-funding and personally I am not convinced that there is a sufficient market for openEHR training to make this sort of service viable at an international level.


Sorry to sound negative but we do need to be realistic. The Board can offer support and 'validation' but realistically it is most unlikely to be able to offer investment.Ian




On 21 February 2014 02:12, pablo pazos <pazospablo at hotmail.com> wrote:





Hi Evelyn,
 
Many thanks for reminding us all about our previous discussions on this topic.  I have just had a look at the openEHR Foundation Governance structure and suggest we propose the establishment of an Education/Training Program responsible to the openEHR Management Board 





It's a wonderful idea. We can start the proposal by setting a template structure like: 





context: why are we doing this? what do we think is missing? how the objectives will help to spread openEHR (spreading the work should a common objective of all the programmes)


objectives: what can we improve?plan & methodology: what should we do to reach the objectives?


conditions: what we need to make this happen? from the foundation, from the community, funding, endorsement, sponsorships, ...


time frame: when to start? when do we need to see results? (I would like to manage this as a project with concrete results and decisions taken in a constrained time frame)


......




who need to appoint a Program Leader (you may consider doing this? I’m happy to be your deputy to get it all started and operational).   





I can do the job, but only if I'm endorsed by the foundation and the community. I would like to know what others think about this. I'm sure there are a lot of people more capable than me on organizing this kinds of things, I'm just a doer, not a politician nor a 100% academic guy :)





We need to generate suitable terms of reference to be agreed to by the openEHR Foundation Board.  For example we need to work closely with the other Program leaders who should be able to assist in identifying some unique roles to get us started in a proper educationally sound manner.




Totally agree, e.g. localization is key on training, so we need to be close to the localization programme (right now we're a little stuck there. Personally, I'm trying to coordinate some common actions with openEHR Brazil, where I'm acting as coordinator to the openEHR in spanish community).




  The focus needs to be on minimum core knowledge/skill requirements for each role. There needs to be a fair bit of flexibility in terms of how the training/education is delivered. 


 
Do you mean knowledge for people participating in the Education Programme ? Or the skill set a trainer should have? What are those "roles" you mention?







The biggest issue I see is funding, as we need someone to manage such a program, especially once the openEHR Foundation gets into a certification/licensing/accreditation program as this is heavily reliant on a proper governance structure.  Also the competency standards themselves need to be maintained and updated from time to time. Australian has several Government funded Industry Skills Councils who take on these tasks. An alternative is for the openEHR Foundation to simply set the standards via its program and outsource the certification/accreditation process on a user pays basis.  I guess we need to develop a business case?  I’ll have a go at that. There are many issues to consider so documenting it in some organised way should assist the openEHR Foundation in their decision making. 





IMO, the first step is to have a group of people interested in education and certification of openEHR related knowledge / skill sets, to create the programme. Then I think we need to come up with different educational levels (basic/introductory, intermediate, advanced, expert), different roles (clinical, informatician, project management, knowledge management, ...), and the matching topics we consider should be taught to those roles, for each level (is a matrix).




Then we can analyze different kinds of educational sessions that can be done: workshops, master classes, courses (long/short), talks/presentations, ... for each of these kinds we can propose some kind of formal certification from openEHR foundation.




Of course, we need to have a place to think about how and who will train trainers than can give those kinds of sessions, to get a certificate from openEHR foundation.





Then think about costs, funding, how the foundation will get money in interchange of endorsing the training instances and certifications, how much that will cost (IMO should be based on a %). But we can have courses in one hand, and exams in the other (is like when getting certified with PMP from PMI you pay for the course and for the exam).




Also, I think is key that we reach a common core of topics that should be taught in all the introductory/intermediate courses, then each educator can make local changes. But I don't know if we can agree on having a common basic set of materials (presentations, documents, papers, practices, etc).



 
Perhaps we can get Gov’t and other stakeholder funding as it is in their interest to have a suitably skilled  workforce????  We should also explore grant opportunities.




If there's real interest of having a formal way of train and certificate students, I think all I mentioned before doesn't need to be funded. I think is the investment we have to do to be endorsed by the foundation to train people. I would love to have an "openEHR foundation logo" on the openEHR course in spanish I've designed more than 4 years ago as an "openEHR foundation approved" course, and give certificates formally approved by openEHR foundation. I'm sure that can bring us to the next level in openEHR education. And I'm sure my course can be complemented by other courses, english based also! And I would love to recommend other "endorser by openEHR foundation" courses to my students, so they can improve their skills.




The main problem I see right now is how we engage openEHR boards to take action and decide on this things. Of course, presenting the proposal to create the programme committee will be the first step!




All the best,


Pablo.

 


Evelyn
 







 
Prof Evelyn J.S.Hovenga, 


CEO, Director & Trainer




eHealth Education Pty Ltd, RTO 32279


(trading as RSC Training and eHE Training)
:  PO Box 9783,  Frenchville Qld 4701


*  e.hovenga at ehe.edu.au


È  0408309839  '  1300 285 512


8  www.ehe.edu.au  & www.ehetraining.edu.au


 
 


 
 


From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of pablo pazos


Sent: Thursday, 20 February 2014 1:14 PM
To: openEHR Clinical
Subject: RE: openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1
 
Hi Evelyn,



We had a long discussion a while ago (Jan 2012), we even created a wiki page, but we didn't get further, IMO because we don't have a clear view of the certification mechanisms from the foundation.

I'd love to see and participate in an openEHR SIG, but some questions arises:



Who will coordinate that? How do we engage people to participate? Who will validate the decisions of the SIG and make them formal? e.g. endorsed by openEHR foundation, who can participate? who has the right to say who has the knowledge and capability to be part of the SIG? I can continue :) but I think I mentioned these a lot of times and got no clear answer, so it seems I don't ask the right questions, or maybe this is not the place to ask those question, or (I'm afraid of this last option) the foundation representatives doesn't know the answers.



As an example, right now there are a lot of groups formally created for each programme, but we still don't know what can we decide and how those decisions will be endorsed by the foundation. Also participation is erratic because our little free time available.



This is the exchange we had a while ago:
http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/2012-January/006527.html



-- 
Kind regards,
Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
http://cabolabs.com


From: ehovenga at gmail.com
To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org


Subject: RE: openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:43:27 +1000
Clearly there are many  openEHR training providers.  May I suggest that the openEHR foundation consider setting the standards that graduates  of such training programs need to be able to comply with?  This includes stating what competencies are needed for the various job roles but also how to certify trainers themselves to ensure quality and consistency.  The openEHR Foundation could consider providing an endorsement mechanism for training organisations.  An openEHR SIG could develop these standards.  


 
Individual countries have their own system of regulating training/education quality based on educational standards.  For example we are a registered training organisation (RTO) in Australia able to develop a curriculum that may be accredited by our national regulator who then approves us to issue an agreed nationally recognised qualification that fits with the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). All Universities and other training providers need to comply with that.  We also have specific requirements on how to write a competency standard – see http://www.nssc.natese.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/71303/TxtCompStandardSection.pdf 


 
We have experience working with ITHSDO and HL7 regarding their certification programs.  I also undertake accreditation of University ICT/SE programs for the Australian Computer Society and manage our RTO.  We’re happy to participate.


 
Regards, Evelyn


 





 
Prof Evelyn J.S.Hovenga, 


CEO, Director & Trainer


eHealth Education Pty Ltd, RTO 32279


(trading as RSC Training and eHE Training)
:  PO Box 9783,  Frenchville Qld 4701


*  e.hovenga at ehe.edu.au


È  0408309839  '  1300 285 512


8  www.ehe.edu.au  & www.ehetraining.edu.au


 


From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Jussara


Sent: Saturday, 15 February 2014 6:05 AM
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
Cc: openEHR Clinical
Subject: Re: openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1


 
We also provide training in openEHR with HL7 Brazil. This year we will provide the first Online course. We give also in company training.


The Brazilian Health informatics association has introduced a HIT  professional certificate two years ago- ProTICS, where knowledge of clinical models   Is  one of the desired skills to a health informaticiN, but is generic. Openehr Brasil is trying to Building a certificate project, but we want that it could be   internationally acknowledged, and the only way is pushing the foundation to tackle this issue. My suggestion is to create a SiG to organize that.  I will propose this on next ínterim board meeting.


Volunteers?
Jussara




Enviado via iPad

Em Feb 14, 2014, às 4:18 PM, pablo pazos <pazospablo at hotmail.com> escreveu:


Hi Alvin,
 


We (CaboLabs.com) do openEHR training in spanish with ACHISA.org (Chilean Association of Healthcare Informatics. ACHISA gives a certificate from the association, but right now there is no formal certificate from openEHR itself. The course is online, and the fourth edition will start on April 2014. We have a waiting list for the course: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDlLUmpMX0pzaHJzZ21FMGVLN1dMUWc6MQ#gid=0


 
More info: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/2012/01/conclusiones-del-curso-de-openehen.html


 
As Ian said, Ocean gives training and certificates also, those instances are english-based. There are some videos of their training instances on YouTube. I totally recommend you to take a look at that.


 
Have a nice weekend!

-- 
Kind regards,


Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
http://cabolabs.com
> From: ian.mcnicoll at gmail.com


> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:59:59 +0000
> Subject: Re: openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1
> To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org


> 
> Hi Alvin,
> 
> There have been some discussions abut formal openEHR training
> accreditation but nothing concrete has emerged. The individual
> companies like Ocean and Cabolabs that offer training can offer


> certificates of attendance/training.
> 
> Ian
> 
> On 13 February 2014 09:24, Alvin Marcelo <alvin.marcelo at gmail.com> wrote:


> > Hi all,
> >
> > Just Wanted to know if there's is a certification training/program for
> > openehr?
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2014 5:18 PM, <openehr-clinical-request at lists.openehr.org> wrote:


> >>
> >> Send openEHR-clinical mailing list submissions to
> >> openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> >>


> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >>
> >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org


> >>
> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >> openehr-clinical-request at lists.openehr.org


> >>
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >> openehr-clinical-owner at lists.openehr.org
> >>


> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >> than "Re: Contents of openEHR-clinical digest..."
> >>
> >>
> >> Today's Topics:


> >>
> >> 1. Representing HbA1c result (mmol/mol) in AE (Koray Atalag)
> >> 2. Re: Representing HbA1c result (mmol/mol) in AE (Diego Bosc?)
> >> 3. Re: Representing HbA1c result (mmol/mol) in AE (Diego Bosc?)


> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 1
> >> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:30:48 +0000


> >> From: Koray Atalag <k.atalag at nihi.auckland.ac.nz>
> >> To: For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical at openehr.org>


> >> Subject: Representing HbA1c result (mmol/mol) in AE
> >> Message-ID:
> >>
> >> <B1CE708E5C614F4BB990E32CC5F03AD4706B4B4C at uxcn10-tdc01.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>


> >>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Any idea how to choose mmol/mol for HbA1c result using DV_QUANTITY in


> >> Archetype Editor?
> >> It used to be a proportion (%) but now the international agreement is to
> >> use this unit which does not come as an option. Wonder if I exists in UCUM?
> >> This is such a commonly used Lab item - I'm sure someone else must have


> >> hit the issue.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> -koray
> >>
> >> -------------- next part --------------
> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...


> >> URL:
> >> <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140213/321750a1/attachment-0001.html>


> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 2
> >> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:16:39 +0100
> >> From: Diego Bosc? <yampeku at gmail.com>


> >> To: For openEHR clinical discussions
> >> <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
> >> Cc: For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical at openehr.org>


> >> Subject: Re: Representing HbA1c result (mmol/mol) in AE
> >> Message-ID:
> >>
> >> <CAFx8UwBTEWAZuy=-wdu1JbpSuP2bOMejH6YuBC40z6vX6=b6Gg at mail.gmail.com>


> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>
> >> Hi Koray,
> >>
> >> UCUM is extensible, you can define new units as long as you follow its


> >> syntax. In this case you are lucky, as mmol/mol (MilliMolesPerMole) is
> >> already used as UCUM unit. You can check it here:
> >> http://www.hl7.de/download/documents/ucum/ucumdata.html


> >>
> >>
> >> I think I also added all these units as valid UCUM units on LinkEHR
> >>
> >>
> >> [image: Im?genes integradas 1]
> >>
> >>


> >> Which is represented in ADL as:
> >>
> >> C_DV_QUANTITY <
> >> property =
> >> <[openehr::507]>
> >> list = <
> >> ["1"] = <


> >> units =
> >> <"mmol/mol">
> >> magnitude =
> >> <|0.0..200.0|>
> >> precision = <|0|>
> >> >
> >> >


> >> >
> >>
> >> Hope this helps :)
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-02-13 4:30 GMT+01:00 Koray Atalag <k.atalag at nihi.auckland.ac.nz>:


> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Any idea how to choose mmol/mol for HbA1c result using DV_QUANTITY in
> >> > Archetype Editor?


> >> >
> >> > It used to be a proportion (%) but now the international agreement is to
> >> > use this unit which does not come as an option. Wonder if I exists in
> >> > UCUM?


> >> >
> >> > This is such a commonly used Lab item - I'm sure someone else must have
> >> > hit the issue.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >


> >> > Cheers,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -koray
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________


> >> > openEHR-clinical mailing list
> >> > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> >> >
> >> >


> >> > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
> >> >


> >> -------------- next part --------------
> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >> URL:
> >> <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140213/e3a87d80/attachment-0001.html>


> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 3
> >> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:16:39 +0100
> >> From: Diego Bosc? <yampeku at gmail.com>


> >> To: For openEHR clinical discussions
> >> <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
> >> Cc: For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical at openehr.org>


> >> Subject: Re: Representing HbA1c result (mmol/mol) in AE
> >> Message-ID:
> >>
> >> <CAFx8UwBTEWAZuy=-wdu1JbpSuP2bOMejH6YuBC40z6vX6=b6Gg at mail.gmail.com>


> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>
> >> Hi Koray,
> >>
> >> UCUM is extensible, you can define new units as long as you follow its


> >> syntax. In this case you are lucky, as mmol/mol (MilliMolesPerMole) is
> >> already used as UCUM unit. You can check it here:
> >> http://www.hl7.de/download/documents/ucum/ucumdata.html


> >>
> >>
> >> I think I also added all these units as valid UCUM units on LinkEHR
> >>
> >>
> >> [image: Im?genes integradas 1]
> >>
> >>


> >> Which is represented in ADL as:
> >>
> >> C_DV_QUANTITY <
> >> property =
> >> <[openehr::507]>
> >> list = <
> >> ["1"] = <


> >> units =
> >> <"mmol/mol">
> >> magnitude =
> >> <|0.0..200.0|>
> >> precision = <|0|>
> >> >
> >> >


> >> >
> >>
> >> Hope this helps :)
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-02-13 4:30 GMT+01:00 Koray Atalag <k.atalag at nihi.auckland.ac.nz>:


> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Any idea how to choose mmol/mol for HbA1c result using DV_QUANTITY in
> >> > Archetype Editor?


> >> >
> >> > It used to be a proportion (%) but now the international agreement is to
> >> > use this unit which does not come as an option. Wonder if I exists in
> >> > UCUM?


> >> >
> >> > This is such a commonly used Lab item - I'm sure someone else must have
> >> > hit the issue.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >


> >> > Cheers,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -koray
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________


> >> > openEHR-clinical mailing list
> >> > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> >> >
> >> >


> >> > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
> >> >


> >> -------------- next part --------------
> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >> URL:
> >> <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140213/e3a87d80/attachment-0002.html>


> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Subject: Digest Footer
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> openEHR-clinical mailing list


> >> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> >>
> >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org


> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> End of openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1
> >> ***********************************************
> >


> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > openEHR-clinical mailing list
> > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org


> > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
> 
> 
> 


> -- 
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859


> skype ianmcnicoll
> ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com
> ian at mcmi.co.uk
> 


> Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics
> Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, University College London
> openEHR Archetype Editorial Group
> Member BCS Primary Health Care SG Group www.phcsg.org / BCS Health Scotland


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


_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org


http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org



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



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



_______________________________________________

openEHR-clinical mailing list

openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org

http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.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 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140224/788dc958/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2252 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140224/788dc958/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2252 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140224/788dc958/attachment-0001.jpg>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list