Link between goals and other clinical concepts

Bert Verhees bert.verhees at
Thu Jun 26 03:33:59 EDT 2014

>> The point is that you don't have to choose if you use generic kernel.
> that's also easy to do with reference models. There are many reference 
> models right here 
> <>, to 
> plug into a kernel.

Ah, I did not know about this. I am very pleased to see it. It fits in 
the kernel-design philosophy I favor.

Thanks for the good work.

I found, that there are still some basic rules to which a Reference 
Model must apply. One of the basic structural ideas of the kernel is 
that it must be patient/EHR (say Subject)) centric.
Honouring this basic idea avoids having to write Reference 
Model-specific base structure code.

>> You can use multiple in archetypes-based reference models to validate 
>> and store and query data. You can allow certain parts of an 
>> healthcare organization, without any technical provision, to 
>> implement new ideas about medical data structures, maybe necessary 
>> for specific treatment.
> sure, but like I said, this is just the same problem moved up one 
> level. At some point, you still have to write classes with the 
> semantics of things like Observation or Composition or whatever. 
> Otherwise you can't get the data on the screen, or compute with it in 
> any meaningful way.

I think this can be solved with templates and information which can be 
in the archetype-meta-data. Don't you agree? What am I missing?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list