Actually SNOMED did exist when we designed the openEHR RM, and even if
today's SNOMED CT had existed we would have done pretty much the same
thing I think. The Observation model for example is a structural model
of time series data, adapted to direct software use. Trying to use
SNOMED to code all that would be painful, and contrary to what SNOMED is
for.
There are other things we know we would change (AFAIK, all on the PR
tracker somewhere), but I can't imagine wanting to throw out basic
structures that make developers lives easier.
- thomas
On 01/09/2016 01:54, Bert Verhees wrote:
Hi,
I am just wondering if there are some opinions about this.
Do we still need the not so generic reference model which OpenEhr has,
with archetypes denoting Observation, Evaluation etc?
Wouldn't a more generic reference model, like ISO13606 be sufficient,
when the terminology, worldwide, is moving to SNOMED-CT?
Because the SNOMED-concepts already indicate in which hierarchy a
data-item belongs (clinical finding, procedure, body structure, etc),
and with much more detail then the OpenEHR reference model.
When using SNOMED in OpenEHR there will be redundant information
created, and to not create redundant information is one of the main
golden rules in system design.
I think the reference model design needs reconsideration. It comes
from a time when there was no SNOMED-CT.
Thanks for any thoughts.
_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
