Dear David
Ocean is working to make it easy to adopt openEHR inside systems or as
adaptors to existing systems - through shared tools that support its
use. We are hoping to open source some more of these tools - what we
call the virtual EHR - a kernel which allows us to create openEHR data
using archetypes, and a query tool that will retrieve information from
EHRs. We have a working kernel which we are testing in a real clinical
environment as part of an R&D project. There are GP vendors who are
interested and we will work with them when they are ready - we are
utilising the technology in non-health environments as well which means
we are here for the long haul.
Ocean also has 'EhrView' - a component which enables applications to
simply display EHR data held in openEHR format - and alter the
display to suit that environment. 'EhrBank' is the backend providing
the medico-legal EHR repository. We have a terminology server utilising
SNOMED which is designed to deliver terms as specified in archetypes -
this is a critical piece of the puzzle and one which will greatly ease
the uptake of SNOMED in Australia.
Finally, we have a product called 'LifeKey' which allows people to keep
and move about with their own health record - which will be able to
extract health information from cooperating systems and store it in openEHR
format - with a simple and secure viewer all on the USB stick.
We seek support only to ensure that health records are not locked away
in proprietary systems which follow a predictable path as they go
through the software lifecycles. We want health records to be
independent of clinical applications and provided through services that
support integrated care. Your repeated reference to large US vendors as
the hope for the future is, I believe, misguided. It may, if enough
people are persuaded, be realistic but we will continue what we are
doing until there is a widely used open standard for EHRs that supports
patients moving about the health system which can share important
health information.
There is much to be excited about - if we can infect you with just a
little - I will be pleased. It is good to have a hard working critic
none-the-less.
Cheers, Sam
David More wrote:
Quoting from your previous
"Be fair, David. It is clearly
not the goal of the openEHR project to create a better GP clinical
informations system."
I misunderstood then - but that's
what I thought Sam H. and Peter S. have as their goal. A world full of
high quality interoperable GP systems. I also thought their commercial
component - Ocean Informatics - was working towards just that. Seems
odd to me you would spend 10 years developing something you were not
then going to deploy or at least assist in deploying?
You are saying they are just
designing and leaving it up to others to build. Maybe Hugh, Peter or
Sam can clarify? I have been wrong before and can be again.
Cheers
David
----
Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI
Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038
Skype Username : davidgmore
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 11:04:30 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
> David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> I thought I was being fair- it seems from the openEHR site and
all the
>> trials done so far
>> openEHR is intended for the Ambulatory / GP market - I am not
aware of
>> many concrete plans
>> to use it for HIS systems at this point, albeit I acknowledge
the
>> possibility. Of course
>> it may also be useful in your public health domain.
>
> Yeah, but it is not up to the openEHR foundation to create the
actual GP systems which use the openEHR infrastructure. You were having
a go at the openEHR people for not having produced a successor to MD -
and that's not a fair criticism.
>
>> The fact that this is the target is clear from the list of
commercial
>> providers to me -
>> and does raise the issue of how the archetype data-base /
descriptions
>> etc are to be
>> served to the systems in the field and at the coal face..a
topic I have
>> been asking about
>> and getting few clear answers on.
>
> Probably because no-one knows what the correct answers are, yet.
But that doesn't mean that it is not possible to organise the necessary
social and administrative infrastructure.
>
>> From my rudimentary understanding of archetypes it seems to
me that
>> even the records for a
>> simple general practice may need many hundreds when you think
of all the
>> possible
>> observations, test results, clinical findings etc involved.
Each of
>> which has to be
>> designed, validated, normalised against what already exists,
maintained
>> and version
>> controlled.
>
> Agreed, which is why I think it is important the teh openEHR
Foundation pays attention to winning over and recruiting grassroots
contributors, rather than concentrating on a top-down big govt-led
approach.
>
>> This exercise will not be free I should not imagine. Some
>> one will pay...guess who?
>
> Dunno, who?
>
> Tim C
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:11:03 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
>> > David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Has not helped much - really the GP community needs
something that
>> works
>> >> better than MD
>> >> and which is stable and reliable and available.
openEHR does not look
>> >> like providing that any time soon.
>> >
>> > Be fair, David. It is clearly not the goal of the openEHR
project to
>> create a better GP
>> clinical informations system. The aim is surely to create a
better data
>> infrastructure
>> upon which such a GP system might be built. They are working
towards
>> that, albeit in a
>> painstaking and hence painstakingly slow manner, but there are
several
>> other parts of the
>> puzzle which need to be addressed before a (much) better GP
clinical
>> mousetrap can be
>> built.
>> >
>> > Tim C
>
>
----
Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI
Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038
Skype Username : davidgmore
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 11:04:30 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
> David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> I thought I was being fair- it seems from the openEHR site and
all the
>> trials done so far
>> openEHR is intended for the Ambulatory / GP market - I am not
aware of
>> many concrete plans
>> to use it for HIS systems at this point, albeit I acknowledge
the
>> possibility. Of course
>> it may also be useful in your public health domain.
>
> Yeah, but it is not up to the openEHR foundation to create the
actual GP systems which use the openEHR infrastructure. You were having
a go at the openEHR people for not having produced a successor to MD -
and that's not a fair criticism.
>
>> The fact that this is the target is clear from the list of
commercial
>> providers to me -
>> and does raise the issue of how the archetype data-base /
descriptions
>> etc are to be
>> served to the systems in the field and at the coal face..a
topic I have
>> been asking about
>> and getting few clear answers on.
>
> Probably because no-one knows what the correct answers are, yet.
But that doesn't mean that it is not possible to organise the necessary
social and administrative infrastructure.
>
>> From my rudimentary understanding of archetypes it seems to
me that
>> even the records for a
>> simple general practice may need many hundreds when you think
of all the
>> possible
>> observations, test results, clinical findings etc involved.
Each of
>> which has to be
>> designed, validated, normalised against what already exists,
maintained
>> and version
>> controlled.
>
> Agreed, which is why I think it is important the teh openEHR
Foundation pays attention to winning over and recruiting grassroots
contributors, rather than concentrating on a top-down big govt-led
approach.
>
>> This exercise will not be free I should not imagine. Some
>> one will pay...guess who?
>
> Dunno, who?
>
> Tim C
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:11:03 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
>> > David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Has not helped much - really the GP community needs
something that
>> works
>> >> better than MD
>> >> and which is stable and reliable and available.
openEHR does not look
>> >> like providing that any time soon.
>> >
>> > Be fair, David. It is clearly not the goal of the openEHR
project to
>> create a better GP
>> clinical informations system. The aim is surely to create a
better data
>> infrastructure
>> upon which such a GP system might be built. They are working
towards
>> that, albeit in a
>> painstaking and hence painstakingly slow manner, but there are
several
>> other parts of the
>> puzzle which need to be addressed before a (much) better GP
clinical
>> mousetrap can be
>> built.
>> >
>> > Tim C
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1351 (20060103) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
|
