Hugh Leslie wrote: > Hi Tim > > You are right - software has been in development for many years - I remember > being shown a working gehr kernel back in about 2000 and a number of kernels > have been built since.
yes, and perhaps with that in mind you can understand the disappointment, which has begun to turn into frustration and outright annoyance when Ocean Informatics and openEHR people pop up at every health informatics conference and in every online health informatics forum promoting openEHR as the best way forward. That may be the case, but those of us who have been around for a while can't help but think, and say, that it also seems to be a bloody slow way forward. I suspect that the slow pace has been due to a lack of big investors (either public or private sector) to back this project. I'm not sure whether the lack of investors has been because Ocean Informatics has not sought such funds, or whether it wanted to retain independence (other people's money always comes with strings attached), or whether investors were dubious. I can understand why many existing health informatics software vendors might be frightened by openEHR, because it promises technologies which will undermine much of their existing business models. But there are many other sources of R&D funding, and I am surprised these have not been able to have been tapped to accelerate development. However, I was sent a private message by Mark Gibson of Extensia, further describing their complete, production-ready openEHR system. He was reluctant to post the message to the GPCG list after the mauling he got following his first message, but I told him that if he wants to flog software to GPs, he'd better get used to being mauled - they're a tough market. Anyway, he indicated that pricing models for their stuff will be ready early in the new year, at stage their may be real enthusiasm amongst local developers and academic units to evaluate what they have done - provided the pricing is reasonable. > What we have developed more recently has not come > from nothing but is based on all the work and experience that has gone > before. The release of version 1.0 of openEHR has enabled us to work > confidently towards commercially useable software and we are at that point > now. "Commercially usable" means that you are willing to let the software out of your development labs and let other people install it in their servers to test and evaluate. Have you actually reached that point? Thomas Beale indicated not just two or three weeks ago on the openhealth list. > My point about version 1.0 is that this is giving people confidence > that things are settled and are not likely to change dramatically. I think > we are likely to see a lot more software becoming available in the next 12 > months from other sources. Yup, see comments above re Extensia. Tim C >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tim Churches [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, 14 December 2006 8:57 PM >> To: Hugh Leslie; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Where is openEHR going? - was RE: [GPCG_TALK] >> Request for XML dump for RAIL >> >> Hugh Leslie wrote: >>> Hi Tim >>> >>> I wish you would sit down with us and have a look at what >> we are doing >>> rather than 'be a cynical bastard'! >> Well I did spend many hours corresponding with Thomas Beale >> and Sam Heard a few weeks ago, trying to work out where you >> guys were up to with implementation. Trying to get details >> was like trying to get blood out of the proverbial. I asked >> Sam Heard if I could forward messages which Thomas, he and >> you had sent to me in reply to the openhealth list, but Sam >> asked that I didn't, so instead I have done my best to >> accurately convey what I understood the situation was. >> >>> We have appreciated your support over >>> the years and I can understand your frustration, however we >> have been >>> working really hard with few resources - most of the software >>> described below is the product of small teams working with >> very small >>> budgets. Its only really in the last 12 months since >> version one was >>> released that all this has happened. >> What I find remarkable, and I think that I am not alone in >> this, is that for a project which has been under development >> for a decade or more, and which has been described and >> promoted at conferences, on the openEHR and other Web sites >> and in various papers for nearly that long, serious effort to >> actually build software implementations of the ideas has only >> taken place in the last 12 months. Clearly I am an empiricist >> (which is a highly forgivable trait in an epidemiologist) >> rather than a theoretician. However, I suspect that many >> others on this list share my empirical leanings. >> >>> I have included part of the text of the email I sent to you >> recently >>> and again would be happy to sit down with you and show you >> where we are at. >> >> OK, I'm glad you have reproduced this email because I asked >> you, Sam Heard and Thomas Beale whether I could forward the >> information to the openhealth list, Sam replied "We'd rather >> you didn't." >> >>> ALL >>> of this software was demonstrated at the Ocean stand at HIC >> this year, >>> including taking HL7v2 pathology and radiology results and storing >>> them as openEHR compositions in the database. >>> >>> We as a company at the moment are more concerned about >> having too much >>> work and too much interest rather than not enough. Most of >> this is in >>> Europe, and I for one am proud to be part of an Australian company >>> that is doing world recognised work in this area. >>> >>> "We currently have demonstrable software that: >>> - creates archetypes (the ocean archetype editor and a >> java archetype >>> editor). >>> - We can take the archetypes and create templates from >> them which you >>> can use to build gui forms using a drag and drop process. (Ocean >>> Template >>> Designer) >>> - We have worked with clients who have taken these guis >> and used them >>> to enter data and save the data into our repository. (Ocean EhrBank) >>> - EhrBank is an openEHR repository which will store any archetyped >>> data (the ocean kernel sits on top of it providing the ability to >>> build openEHR objects from archetypes or templates. >>> - We have a query editor that allows you to build sql like >> queries to >>> query the data and we have clients in Turkey that have successfully >>> demonstrated this functionality for themselves. >>> - We have software that allows you to display data queried >> from the >>> repository in a web page. >>> >>> We also have a terminology service that is well integrated into the >>> tools and allows you to build pre-defined queries in snomed etc. >>> These can then be used in a gui to allow clinicians to select terms. >>> >>> We are not the sort of company that hypes up its wares and >> so Tom is >>> being honest with you in saying that these systems have not been >>> tested in high volume mission critical situations (although volume >>> testing of the repository is going on as we speak.) These >> tools have >>> been out there being demonstrated and tested by real clients for at >>> least 6 months and we have generated a lot of interest >> across Europe >>> (In particular Turkey, the Netherlands and Denmark and >> there is a lot of interest in the UK). >>> Most of these tools have been built since openEHR v1.0 was released >> Hugh is referring to Version 1.0 of the openEHR >> specifications, not Version 1.0 of a software implementation >> of those specifications. >> >>> so in >>> fact the timelines have been particularly spectacular in my opinion >>> especially since we have done most of it under our own >> steam. We can >>> demonstrate the full chain that you referred to but not all >> of it is >>> as slick as we would like it yet (that said, we think its >> all pretty >>> slick!) If you were at HIC this year, you would have seen this all >>> working at the stand, and we have come a long way since then. >>> >>> We are definitely ready to start some small implementations >> and there >>> are opportunities in Australia as well as Europe (and the >> US as Sam mentioned.)" >>> Apart from these things, Tom and I were invited to an >> eclipse meeting >>> in Europe recently to discuss an eclipse version of the >> openEHR tools >>> and this process is on-going. >>> >>> Regards Hugh >>> >>> I forgot to mention that there is the beginnings of an archetype >>> repository available from the openEHR web site and the >> Ocean web site. >> >> OK, thanks, but I don't see that any of this is inconsistent >> with my take on where you are at (reproduced below) which I >> posted to thsi list this morning. As I said, I would have >> just used your words but Sam Heard asked me not to. >> >> I look forward to getting my hands on completed and >> ready-to-evaluate openEHR software components. Demonstrations >> don't impress, I need to be able to use the software >> components myself, with my data, in the privacy of my server. >> If you are not at that stage of development, then that's OK, >> but don't be surprised if the epithets "glacial" and "geological" >> are being bandied around, given that openEHR has now been >> promoted to us as an imminent solution to our health data >> management woes for many, many years now. >> >> However, the Extensia suite sounds interesting. Let's hope it >> doesn't cost the earth. >> >> Tim C >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Churches >>>> Sent: Thursday, 14 December 2006 8:50 AM >>>> To: General Practice Computing Group Talk >>>> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Request for XML dump for RAIL >>>> >>>> David Guest wrote: >>>>>> The data is identified as such and grouped in a >> hierarchy. But its >>>>>> description and constraints are entirely open and >>>> undefined. I guess >>>>>> its a useful lowest common denominator >>>>> Does anyone think openEHR will ever produce the goods? >>>> There has been correspondence on the openhealth mailing list >>>> regarding this issue recently. David More quipped about >> "geological >>>> timescales", perhaps with some justification. To summarise and >>>> paraphrase (accuratey I hope) the thread: the openEHR >> people assure >>>> us that several private firms are using openEHR-based systems in >>>> deployed proprietary vertical health apps, and that lots >> of profs and >>>> students in various universities are studying and >> tinkering with it. >>>> The openEHR specifications have been accepted as a >> proposed standard >>>> (but not ratified or approved as a standard as yet). Furthermore, >>>> Ocean Informatics and the openEHR Foundation are >> themselves working >>>> on a suite of tools which actually implement the ideas behind >>>> openEHR, but these tools are in different stages of completeness: >>>> tools to define and edit openEHR archetype definitions are >> complete >>>> and available as open source. Tools to actually store and retrieve >>>> data using openEHR archetypes are at alpha or beta stages in the >>>> openEHR secret laboratory, but have not been fully tested >> and are not >>>> ready for production use. Thomas Beale has offered access to an >>>> openEHR engine hosted in the Ocean Informatics labs, to be >> accessed >>>> via a proprietary Web service interface requiring the use of a >>>> Microsoft C# .NET DLL on the client side, for capability-testing >>>> purposes by interested parties (contact Thomas Beale at Ocean >>>> Informatics if you are interested). All these openEHR tools still >>>> under development may or may not be open sourced in the >> future - the >>>> Ocean Informatics and openEHR people need to investigate business >>>> models. Other parts of the openEHR puzzle, such as a >> shared library >>>> of openEHR archetype definitions, and a full query language, are >>>> still on the drawing board or in only early stages of >> implementation. >>>> Oh, there is also an open source version of an openEHR >>>> storage/retrieval kernel being written in Sweden, but it >> is not yet >>>> complete either. >>>> >>>> I asked the same questions of the Ocean Informatics and openEHR >>>> people in 2003, and after much email correspondence and head >>>> scratching, I was assured that usable, production-quality openEHR >>>> implementations would be available quite soon. The same assurances >>>> were given just a few weeks ago. I conclude that they are indeed a >>>> bit further along now with actual implementation than they >> were three >>>> years ago, but still have quite a way to go, but it is >> very hard to >>>> extrapolate the progress line to divine when it might >> cross the V1.0 >>>> boundary, although the fact that they were working on GEHR (the >>>> predecessor to openEHR) about 15 years ago, and the >> openEHR has been >>>> going for nearly a decade might provide some clues. Perhaps the >>>> remaining distance is being halved with every passing year? Or >>>> perhaps I am just a cynical bastard? >>>> >>>> Tim C >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gpcg_talk mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk >>>> >>>> __________ NOD32 1920 (20061213) Information __________ >>>> >>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >>>> http://www.eset.com >>>> >>>> >> __________ NOD32 1920 (20061213) 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
