Topics of the openehr-clinical list

Jussara macedo jussara.macedo at gmail.com
Mon Jul 9 11:41:16 EDT 2018


Dear
colleagues,

Although my first thought is to agree with Silje and Heather, with the
remarks on the issues that should be brought to discussion in each list,
 sometimes  it is inevitable that we, modelers, have to discuss some
technical aspects, as they can impact our work,
for instance,
​ ​
the way we express the formalisms.


We have to bear in mind that a collaborative governance must engage all
types of openEHR stakeholders
,
​ ​
to get it done effectively and in a sustainable way. For me,
​ ​
among
​ ​
the roles of the moderator of the groups
,
one is
 provid
ing
 guidance
​ ​
to every and single
 contributor
​ ​
​
an
d
​ ​
anot
​​
her is
rerouting the contributions or issues to the most appropriate place,
​
 always encouraging
​ ​
further
participation.

It
​ ​
may take time for someone to know exactly which list to direct their
​ ​
issue
​ ​
to, I see the list moderator as the most capable person to help that person
identify who might be best able to answer the question or suggestion
​ ​
and to really understand the dual model that is proposed, where
implementers should be
​ ​
concerned only with the more technical aspects, leaving to us clinicians
the nuances of the difficult art of modeling clinical concepts in consensus.

I am particularly
  happy to see t
his community s
o live

lately.

​Regards​




Jussara Rötzsch
MD, MSc



Em sáb, 7 de jul de 2018 às 01:46, Heather Leslie <
heather.leslie at atomicainformatics.com> escreveu:

> Hi Pablo,
>
>
>
> Perhaps the nub of this thread is about how best to engage the clinician
> or clinical modeller.
>
>
>
> If we are talking about the thread titled ‘Non existing constraints:
> closed or open interpretation?’, ultimately I regard this as a technical
> question, right from the outset and framing, through to the conclusions.
> TBH my eyes glazed over immediately and I didn’t bother to read the rest of
> the thread. You’ve had one clinical modeller respond, who is also very
> strong technically, but he is an anomaly (of the nicest sort).
>
>
>
> The clinical modellers who are interested in the technical aspects of
> openEHR DO monitor and respond to the technical and implementation lists.
> Even me on occasion. I think that is the better place to ask questions
> about modelling in the context of development and implementation and, if
> you specifically want modellers involved, suggest you could also cc them in
> the email.
>
>
>
> We all value your huge participation and contributions to furthering the
> openEHR work. I certainly don’t want to discourage you, especially in
> getting clinical or modelling input.
>
>
>
> Ultimately this should be a collaborative and collegial discussion about
> how best to connect the technical and clinical community, not one of
> censure or rule setting.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Heather
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* openEHR-clinical <openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Pablo Pazos
> *Sent:* Saturday, 7 July 2018 2:57 AM
> *To:* For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> >
> *Subject:* Re: Topics of the openehr-clinical list
>
>
>
> Hi Heather,
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Heather Leslie <
> heather.leslie at atomicainformatics.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Pablo,
>
>
>
> To be fair these recent discussions may have been about clinical modelling
> issues but most have not been engaging with clinicians.
>
>
>
> It would be really nice to receive feedback from more clinical modelers,
> sadly most people engaged on the questions I asked are not modelers, I
> can't control who engages and who don't :)
>
>
>
>
>
> The description of the list is: This list is for discussions about any
> clinical aspect of the EHR, including clinical design of archetypes.
>
>
>
> My last question was about clinical modeler interpretation of absence of
> constraints. That is strictly related with clinical design of archetypes,
> since it is about the meaning and intent of the clinical modeler. Not sure
> what the classification criteria is to not accept that kind of question on
> the clinical list.
>
>
>
>
>
> I’d respectfully suggest that these recent emails mostly focus on the
> technical discussion and, unfortunately, will potentially alienate those
> who are not interested in ADL representation etc.
>
>
>
> I too would appreciate if these discussions were moved to the Technical or
> Implementation lists.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ok, I'll stop using this list. For the record, I don't agree with the
> classification criteria given here.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Heather
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* openEHR-clinical <openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Pablo Pazos
> *Sent:* Friday, 6 July 2018 4:22 PM
> *To:* For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> >
> *Subject:* Re: Topics of the openehr-clinical list
>
>
>
> Hi Silje, I think this is for me :)
>
>
>
> I pick which list to send message to very carefully, trying to focus
> modeling methodologies and modeling tools on the clinical, and the rest on
> the technical.
>
>
>
> Some issues clarified on the clinical list, have impact on tools and
> sometimes on the specs themselves. On those cases I try to clarify the
> clinical modeling aspects on this list, then raise related issues on other
> lists or raise JIRA issues for the SEC to review when it is spec related.
>
>
>
> But I know there is a gray area, since each "thing" depends on other
> "things". If there is any specific on my messages that doesn't comply with
> some guideline, please PM to clarify.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Pablo.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:27 AM, Bakke, Silje Ljosland <
> silje.ljosland.bakke at nasjonalikt.no> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I’ve seen a tendency lately that topics that at least to me seem to be of
> a technical nature are posted to the clinical list. These topics often
> generate a lot of discussion, which drowns out much of the discussion about
> the clinical aspects of openEHR. I realise that a lot of discussions will
> be borderline technical/clinical, but I still think a lot of them would
> better belong in the technical or even implementers list. If you’re unsure
> where to post something, may I suggest having a look at the description of
> each of the mailing lists at https://openehr.org/community/mailinglists.
>
>
>
> Thanks everyone, and have a great summer to those of you in the northern
> hemisphere! 😎☀️
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *Silje*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez*
> pablo.pazos at cabolabs.com
> +598 99 043 145
> skype: cabolabs
> Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj>
>
> [image:
> https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B27lX-sxkymfM1pnTU44YXlFbHc&export=download]
> <https://cabolabs.com/>
> http://www.cabolabs.com
> https://cloudehrserver.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez*
> pablo.pazos at cabolabs.com
> +598 99 043 145
> skype: cabolabs
> Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj>
>
> [image:
> https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B27lX-sxkymfM1pnTU44YXlFbHc&export=download]
> <https://cabolabs.com/>
> http://www.cabolabs.com
> https://cloudehrserver.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180709/26fad0a4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list