SV: More generic reference model
mikael.nystrom at liu.se
Tue Sep 6 08:11:15 EDT 2016
My more recent impressions from inside the SNOMED CT community are not entirely in line with Tom's impression below.
The people that believe that SNOMED CT is on its own are nowadays quite few. My impression is that most people understand that SNOMED CT needs to be implemented using powerful information models (or data structures) to achieve all its benefits. However, the problem is that there are so many information models for health records around and some of them are (more or less) standardized and some of them are ad hoc and some of them are proprietary so there is difficult to interact and engage with all of them.
IHTSDO's primary focus is their member countries (and potential member countries) and IHTSDO therefore focus on solving the terminology and ontology needs in these countries. In these member countries are SNOMED CT a large part of the terminology and ontology solution for the health care system. IHTSDO therefore focus on SNOMED CT and collaborations with other terminologies and classifications that are well used in the member countries, like ICD and LOINC. However, it is understandable that for people in non-member countries it seems like IHTSDO assumes that the whole world uses SNOMED CT.
Thomas Beale wrote:
Indeed. Ideally we would work more closely with IHTSDO on this (I spent 4 y on standing committees there), but I think there is not yet the interest in this. There are still people who believe that a) SNOMED CT on its own, with only trivial data structures is all that is needed (that's a categorical error of thinking) and/or b) that the whole world uses SNOMED CT and that therefore the only terminology approach is SNOMED CT (an error today, and I suspect for years to come).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-clinical