Christopher Feahr wrote: >this, of course, raises the issue of the certification of the >certifiers... i.e., where does the meta-certification-buck stop? In my >opinion, certification (that an application, record structure, message, >data elements, archetypes, etc. conform to a particular version of >"registered" standard) should be undertaken ONLY by the SDO who >maintains the standard, or by an agent that is directly certified by the >SDO to perform this function in its place. > >What certification business models have been contemplated by this group? > >Incidentally, I see "certification services" being a principle revenue >stream for the SDO or "maintenance authority", along with license fees >to use and advertise conformance to the standard. Has the group >considered specific business plans for the development and maintenance >of these EHR standards products? > >Christopher J. Feahr, O.D. >Optiserv Consulting (Vision Industry) >Office: (707) 579-4984 >Cell: (707) 529-2268 >http //Optiserv.com >http //VisionDataStandard.org >----- Original Message ----- >From: <lakewood at copper.net> >To: "Patrick Lefebvre" <patrick.lefebvre at psl.ap-hop-paris.fr> >Cc: <openehr-technical at openehr.org> >Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 11:14 AM >Subject: Re: certification and verification of OpenEHR > > > > >>Patrick Lefebvre wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi All, >>> >>> >>> >>>>--- (...) >>>>Been off looking at some operational considerations associated >>>>with supporting, maintaining and updating global EHRs. >>>>The following types of users were considered: >>>>1)CREATORS >>>>2)REVIEWERS >>>>3)ADMINISTRATORS >>>>4)CERTIFIERS >>>> >>>> >>>This idea of certification is not only good for EHRs. >>> >>>Self-proclaimed openEHR-conformant software sould also be tested by >>>general, >>>public certification tests, including EHRs & archetypes examples. >>> >>>Independent organisms should also deliver their stamps, in a scheme >>> >>> >like: > > >>>"Veritas has controlled this software to be openEHR-compliant with >>> >>> >the > > >>>specifications issued by... (openEHR, CEN, ISO, HL7 ?) ". >>> >>> >>>-- Patrick Lefebvre >>> "Ce que j'?cris n'engage que moi, et ce jusqu'? ma prochaine >>> >>> >id?e." > > >>>- >>>If you have any questions about using this list, >>>please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org >>> >>> >>> >>Hi All, >> >>Certification should be identified as well. This should include >>information such as: >>station, date, time, source, results, requestor. With this information >>tracking >>can be performed so that actual/potential problems can be isolated. >> >>-Thomas Clark >> >> >> >> >> >>- >>If you have any questions about using this list, >>please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org >> >> > > > > Hi All,
certification, and verification, can be performed by appropriate software packages. Hence, different jurisdictions can require more/less in the package, which fits nicely into the model permitting different jurisdictions developing their own versions of record-based systems, including their own archetypes. Localization is important; localized certification is therefore important. Problem solved if a set of basic goals/objectives/results are defined/developed/tested. A "maintenance authority" in this case may be a "big chunk" or work especially if within a single facility a group of records may be certified multiple times, e.g., -incoming -emergency care -radiology -surgery -admitting -in-patient care -discharge At each stage this is a change someone will 'modify' the records. At each stage there can be justification for certifying the records, e.g., 'I don't want to deal with the problems someone created in the records!'. Finally, one should insure that upon discharge the records at 'incoming' are in the final result along with the one that 'should' be there from the facility and providers. It appears to be a good application for a set of basic tools (language translators optionally or provided by the Client) that is modified for the end-user. On a regional, national, internation scale I don't think a standards body should be this far into it. License fees are a much better source of revenue. -Thomas Clark - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
