More generic reference model

Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se
Tue Sep 6 13:01:41 EDT 2016


Mikaels thoughts resonate with some discussion we had during the
MIE/HEC2016 openEHR Developers' workshop.

Many of us think that a better integration of the openEHR and the Snomed CT
modelling efforts would be great. But there are not enough resources (e.g.
dedicated time of people with the right knowledge) being put into doing
this, since this is hard (but interesting) work usually requiring somebody
to pay people...

When there are countries (or other giant organizations) interested in using
_both_ openEHR and SNOMED CT, then such resources may start being
allocated. (It is reasonable that organizations listen to their members'
needs.) Norway might be/become such a country - they already have a serious
openEHR modelling effort and will likely start using SNOMED CT more.

What about Brazil? UK? Others? Dear list members, please tell us if you
know about big efforts/programmes seriously interested in using _both_
openEHR and SNOMED CT for real EHR systems etc.

Best regards,
Erik Sundvall
Ph.D. Medical Informatics. Information Architect. Tel: +46-72-524 54 55 (or
010-1036252 in Sweden)
Region Östergötland: erik.sundvall at regionostergotland.se (previously lio.se)
http://www.regionostergotland.se/cmit/
Linköping University: erik.sundvall at liu.se, http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Mikael Nyström <mikael.nystrom at liu.se>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>                              Regards
>
>                              Mikael
>
>
>
>
>
> 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).
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160906/f66b042d/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list