difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se
Wed Aug 26 11:49:08 EDT 2015


By the way feel free to add some of the

onsdag 26 augusti 2015 skrev Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se>:

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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> 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
>> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>>
>> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 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> 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> 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
>>> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>>>
>>> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 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> 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
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>> 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
>>>
>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sent from mobile.
>


-- 
Sent from mobile.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150826/af6dcc05/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-technical mailing list