Christopher Feahr wrote:
>With regard to EHRs of all sizes... yes, they will look different, and >if some of those differences were not there, a higher level of >interoperability MIGHT result. But again, I contend that it is the DATA >that is most desperately in need of a standard. The EHR efforts seem to >want to standardize both the data AND the horse it rode in on. I think >that is too much... and will simply not be adopted fast enough to ever >reach critical mass. > not sure what you mean here... three specifications relating to the EHR are: - the CEN ENV 13606 EHR Exchange standard (abstract) - the HL7 CDA (an XML standard) - the openEHR models (abstract + XML) All of these have a pure information component or container, which is equivalent and converging, as follows: - CDA Document - CEN Composition - openEHR Transaction (soon to be renamed Composition) You can have a look at all these and you will see that they are all models of the minimum information that can be sensibly included in an EHR commit. None are particularly complex. Inside the Document/Composition container, you find "Sections"/"Organisers" and then something like "Entries". How Entries are structured depends on what you are trying to record. Basic models, or "analysis patterns" available for Entries are: - the CEN generic hierarchy data structure - the stricter but still generic openEHR subtypes of Observation (past information), Evaluation (decisions), Instruction (prospective information) - the HL7 RIM model of acts - models of plans - etc These specifications have been converging for some time now, and continue to do so with people from all 3 organisations working with each other. I would say we are making pretty good progress overall. (We'll know more at the HL7 meeting in Memphis, the CEN meeting in Aarhus in September;-) - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
