More generic reference model

Bert Verhees bert.verhees at rosa.nl
Thu Sep 8 10:58:37 EDT 2016


Hi,

On my site, ideas grow slowly, during the week while writing and talking 
about it.
I think I have thought it over now.

let me tell you what I have thought:

1) There is not much change needed in the OpenEHR specs to unlock the 
full datamining potential of SNOMED.
2) Also there is hardly any change in  software architecture needed (of 
course, this depends on the implementation)
3) It is an addition, and easy to create, and no problem if your 
archetypes are going to be used in a Non-SNOMED country. The integration 
is in a very transparent way possible.
4) There needs to be software written. But it is software, largely based 
on ANTLR. I don't think that is a big project.

Today, I wrote a post on it on my webblog.

Maybe I miss something, but I guess I will hear about that.

Check for yourself:
http://www.bertverhees.nl/archetypes/needed-run-snomed-ct-expression-constraints-openehr-aql/

Best regards
Bert Verhees.




Op 8-9-2016 om 16:19 schreef Beatriz de Faria Leao:
> Very good discussion.
> Regarding Brazil - I cannot speak on behalf of the MOH but what we’ve 
> been informed is that the MInister demanded the Financial Area to pay 
> SNOMED-CT. We all hope this is going to happen soon.
>
> Meanwhile some organizations (private hospitals) have a SNOMED 
> license. THe Hospital I work with ( Sirio Libanes ) has recently 
> developed a full POC using Marand’s backend, a Terminology server, an 
> interoperability layer (Health Connect) and a legacy system (TASY from 
> Phillips) and it was very successful. All archetypes we are using, 
> specialising, or creating use SNOMED-CT as the reference terminology. 
> We are working close with the team that is developing archetypes and 
> templates for the national project.
>
> I agree with Thomas. Terminologies are essential but not enough. It is 
> necessary to have the information model and then the binding to the 
> terminology set.
>
> As soon as Brazil signs I think we could partner with Norway to 
> support this OPENEHR -SNOMED CT initiative.
>
> I invite you to come to the  CBIS 2016 - The Brazilian COnference on 
> Health Informatics, November 27th -30th. OpenEHR will be one of the 
> topics and we plan to show what we are doing. 
> http://www.sbis.org.br/cbis2016
>
>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Birger Haarbrandt 
>> <birger.haarbrandt at plri.de <mailto:birger.haarbrandt at plri.de>> wrote:
>>
>> I wish there was any activity regarding SNOMED CT in Germany at all :(
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Birger
>>
>>> Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se <mailto:erik.sundvall at liu.se>> 
>>> hat am 6. September 2016 um 19:01 geschrieben:
>>>
>>> Mikaels thoughts resonate with some discussion we had during the 
>>> MIE/HEC2016 openEHR Developers' workshop.
>>> he 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 
>>> <mailto:erik.sundvall at regionostergotland.se> (previously lio.se 
>>> <http://lio.se/>) http://www.regionostergotland.se/cmit/
>>> Linköping University:erik.sundvall at liu.se 
>>> <mailto:erik.sundvall at liu.se>, http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ 
>>> <http://www.imt.liu.se/%7Eerisu/>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Mikael Nyström 
>>> <mikael.nystrom at liu.se <mailto: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
>>>     <mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
>>>     http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>>>     <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> openEHR-clinical mailing list
>>> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org 
>>> <mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> openEHR-clinical mailing list
>> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org 
>> <mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>
> Beatriz de Faria Leão
>
> bfleao at gmail.com <mailto:bfleao at gmail.com>
> Fone: 11-98114-1617
> Skype: bfleao
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160908/5ff87622/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list