Link between goals and other clinical concepts

Thomas Beale thomas.beale at
Wed Jun 25 19:26:42 EDT 2014

On 25/06/2014 13:23, Bert Verhees wrote:
> On 25-06-14 11:43, Heather Leslie wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm just going to chip in here because we see a lot of discussion 
>> about drawbacks of the openEHR ENTRY types, but not a lot of 
>> endorsement. After 8 years of modelling archetypes, I find that the 
>> ENTRY classes work really well, and this is subsequently borne out in 
>> implementation. For example, the ACTIONs are an extremely elegant and 
>> practical class, although complex to implement. The OBSERVATIONs I 
>> model, especially related to device capture, can be extremely 
>> complicated related to State, Protocol and Events. It is not very 
>> often I find a requirement that cannot be managed within these 
>> structures.
> Hi Heather,
> If you read well I state more then one time that I think that the 
> OpenEHR information model, this includes also the ENTRY-model, is good.
> The discussion is about if the definition of the information model 
> should be in the reference model. Of course, the reference model will 
> always give a base, so there will always be some semantics in it, but 
> the question is, how much semantics should be in there, and, even more 
> important, which semantics.
> It is not about your requirements, I think most medical information 
> models can meet most of your requirements. The point is that there are 
> more information models, and you cannot use them when you use OpenEHR. 
> One reason for this is because of the semantic structures openEHR 
> defines on the reference model.

What is to stop you using them? I have 5 reference models loaded into 
the ADL Workbench right now. Building a kernel to use them wouldn't be hard.

- thomas

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list