That’s is also not the approach that was agreed to and doesn’t promote collaboration with our colleagues using other EMRs and the other i2b2 based CDRNs,
Russ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wanta Keith M Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:52 AM To: Dan Connolly; <[email protected]> Subject: RE: CDM ETL direct from Epic Clarity #464 Dan – WISC didn’t use that approach because our data is sourced from our data warehouse for i2b2. Our data warehouse data sources from Clarity, but not all of it. We used the SCILHS approach with a twist. Keith From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:44 AM To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: CDM ETL direct from Epic Clarity #464 So WISC and/or MCW found a copy of this in gpc-dev? That's odd; my notes<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/160#comment:24> show both of those sites used the SCILHS i2p-transform approach: * DevTeams#wisc<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/wiki/DevTeams#wisc> in ticket:473#comment:38<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/473#comment:38> * DevTeams#mcw<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/wiki/DevTeams#mcw> in a March 22 message<http://listserv.kumc.edu/pipermail/gpc-dev/2016q1/002670.html> etc. ref: #464<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/464> -- Dan
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
