difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se
Wed Aug 26 11:46:16 EDT 2015


Hi!

Where can one find proposals/diagrams describing the refreshed RM
(reference model) in the new 13606 revision? Will 13606 keep using the
old data types or harmonize more with CIMI or OpenEHR?

Is there now consensus/majority regarding using ADL/AOM 2.0 for 13606? If
so, great!

When it comes to "simplifying" the RM (or perhaps moving complexity to
another meta/design-pattern layer) I think CIMI has gone further than
13606. Are there any plans of aligning 13606 with CIMI?

//Erik Sundvall

onsdag 26 augusti 2015 skrev Kalra, Dipak <d.kalra at ucl.ac.uk>:

> Dear Ian,
>
> Thanks also for your helpful reflections. I agree that once the standard
> is close to final we should perform and publish a detailed comparison and
> cross mapping between the reference models, as an aid to system
> implementers and tool makers.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Dipak Kalra
>
> On 26 Aug 2015, at 17:20, Ian McNicoll <ian at freshehr.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ian at freshehr.com');>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Dipak,
>
> A very clear and helpful statement of current and future intent. I too
> agree that we should not focus negatively on the differences and that they
> are mutually reinforcing but people do ask and it's important that we are
> clear that while 13606 and openEHR share a number of tools, technologies,
> philosophies and even people + good relationships), they are not currently
> interchangeable or directly interoperable.
>
> From a high-level perspective they are indeed very similar but the
> detailed differences do matter to implementers, and I think we need to be
> clear to the market about these differences.
>
> Thanks too for the perspective on AQL adoption - makes complete sense to
> me in the 13606 context.
>
> Ian
>
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: ian at freshehr.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ian at freshehr.com');>
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnicoll at openehr.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ian.mcnicoll at openehr.org');>
> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
> On 26 August 2015 at 15:33, Kalra, Dipak <d.kalra at ucl.ac.uk
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','d.kalra at ucl.ac.uk');>> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> This is an interesting discussion, and I would like to stress the
>> complementarity of the two.
>>
>> openEHR is, as others have said, an important consolidator of the
>> state-of-the-art in best practices for the design of an electronic health
>> record architecture, repositories and the underpinning of EHR systems. An
>> important advantage is that it specifications are publicly accessible, and
>> of course it has a vibrant community and a large number of tools to support
>> its use.
>>
>> 13606 has always had a good relationship with openEHR, but is primarily
>> intended to be an interface standard between heterogeneous EHR systems, and
>> is therefore optimised for that purpose (e.g. for mappings), which means
>> its reference model is definitely simpler. There are many countries and
>> situations where it is essential to have a formal international standard in
>> order for it to be acceptable as part of a national strategy. Some vendors
>> have also indicated that they like the inevitable stability of a standard,
>> which changes infrequently. 13606 also has a community and tools, and of
>> course many of its community are also part of openEHR, and vice versa.
>>
>> If one takes a high-level look at the many different globally-used
>> representations of health data, it is easy to see that these two reference
>> models are indeed very similar. Whilst near to the ground we can easily be
>> tempted to focus on their minor differences, I believe it is of greater
>> value to society and to our field if we can regard them - and champion them
>> - as a mutually reinforcing pair of models.
>>
>>
>> The specification of archetypes is very mature, and during the revision
>> we expect to upgrade to the latest AOM (which is 2.0). This part of the
>> standard will also remain focused on a logical representation supporting
>> archetype interchange.
>>
>>
>> As has been pointed out, AQL could in theory have been added to the
>> standard, since it could “work" with 13606. However, another important
>> imperative for a standard is that it has reached a sufficient level of
>> maturity and stability. It was also felt important by the working groups of
>> CEN and ISO that we do not introduce something very novel into this
>> revision process. I did suggest that we consider adding a sixth part to the
>> standard to support the distributed analysis of electronic health records
>> (such as communicating queries). It was felt wiser, and I support this
>> view, not to introduce something new to these five parts of the standard,
>> but once it has finished its revision to propose a new work item to CEN and
>> ISO on the querying of EHRs. AQL will inevitably be an important
>> contribution to that new work item, and hopefully by the time we are ready
>> for it the AQL specification will be very mature and there will be much
>> more experience of its use, making it an ideal specification to standardise.
>>
>>
>> Thank you all for your excellent contributions in different areas of EHR
>> representation, communication and implementation - to keep advancing our
>> field and the quality of EHRs world wide.
>>
>>
>> With best wishes,
>>
>> Dipak
>> ________________________________________________________
>> Dipak Kalra
>> Clinical Professor of Health Informatics
>> Centre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education
>> University College London
>>
>> President, The EuroRec Institute
>> Honorary Consultant, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London
>>
>> On 26 Aug 2015, at 14:44, Ian McNicoll <ian at freshehr.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ian at freshehr.com');>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bert,
>>
>> "I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and
>> every system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL."
>>
>> That is fair enough but we were asked to characterise the differences
>> between 13606 and openEHR and I am comfortable that the actual and formal
>> adoption of AQL is one of those  differences.
>>
>> AQL is on the openEHR specifications roadmap but AFAIK this is not the
>> case for 13606. Of course that does not stop 13606 vendors implementing AQL
>> but in terms of actual differences between the 2 communities the adoption,
>> or intention to adopt AQL seems (from the outside) somewhat different both
>> at a practical and formal level.
>>
>> Although AQL adoption in the openEHR community is far from universal,
>> most of the vendors/developers that I have spoken to see it as something
>> they want to implement, particularly as GDL is somewhat dependent on AQL.
>>
>> I am just trying to ascertain if there is similar enthusiasm/intention
>> amongst 13606 vendors, or if AQL forms part of the current 13606 refresh
>> discussions.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Ian McNicoll
>> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
>> office +44 (0)1536 414994
>> skype: ianmcnicoll
>> email: ian at freshehr.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ian at freshehr.com');>
>> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>>
>> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnicoll at openehr.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ian.mcnicoll at openehr.org');>
>> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
>> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>>
>> On 26 August 2015 at 13:28, Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bert.verhees at rosa.nl');>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26-08-15 14:23, Ian McNicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>> but am not aware of any non-openEHR
>>>> implementations
>>>>
>>> Is there a Xhosa implementation of 13606 or OpenEHR?
>>>
>>> Does that mean OpenEHR or 13606 are not able to support Xhosa?
>>>
>>> I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and
>>> every system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org');>
>>>
>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org');>
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org');>
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org');>
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
>

-- 
Sent from mobile.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150826/76791a4d/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-technical mailing list