More generic reference model

Diego Boscá yampeku at
Thu Sep 1 04:17:41 EDT 2016

Main problem I see there is that Snomed focus usually differs of what
we look in the bindings, which makes binding process quite difficult
(e.g. binding a blood pressure archetype entry with the blood pressure
snomed ct term is wrong. It should be bound to something in the lines
of "report about blood pressure").

In the end, you can see the different classes of openEHR entries as
generic entries with a (kind of) meaning provided by openEHR. Think
something in the lines of 'openEHR::OBSERVATION'. I believe that
ISO13606 part 3 proposes something in the lines of this to deal with
different RM semantics

By the way, there are countries that are proposing a national
extension to Snomed to add that kind of "report about..." terms. This
way they assure that the meaning of the archetype and the term is
exactly the same.


2016-09-01 9:54 GMT+02:00 Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at>:
> Hi,
> I am just wondering if there are some opinions about this.
> Do we still need the not so generic reference model which OpenEhr has, with
> archetypes denoting Observation, Evaluation etc?
> Wouldn't a more  generic reference model, like ISO13606 be sufficient, when
> the terminology, worldwide, is moving to SNOMED-CT?
> Because the SNOMED-concepts already indicate in which hierarchy a data-item
> belongs (clinical finding, procedure, body structure, etc), and with much
> more detail then the OpenEHR reference model.
> When using SNOMED in OpenEHR there will be redundant information created,
> and to not create redundant information is one of the main golden rules in
> system design.
> I think the reference model design needs reconsideration. It comes from a
> time when there was no SNOMED-CT.
> Thanks for any thoughts.
> Bert
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list