Sam,
Thanks for the helpful comments
Sam Heard wrote:
> I believe that DSS
> groups will be a major player in determining the final archetypes that are
> agreed at a high level.
>
It seems to me that in the same way, archetypes will have great impact on
the development of future EHR-compatible instrument interface standards. If
instruments and instrument interfaces are required to provide information
that is complete enough to be integrated into the EHR, then additional
context information will need to be appended as the measurement values are
recorded.
Lets assume that a typical existing instrument interface was not designed to
produce shareable EHR extracts - a safe bet in my view. Result: missing
context info. So to ensure compatibility either,
- the instrument interface is revised by the instrument vendor to satisfy
the associated archetypes
OR
- an adapter on the EHR side of the interface adds the required context
information prior to submitting it to the EHR-S proper. (not very nice)
OR
- some compromise is reached on the completeness of the archetype.
(dangerous)
OK - maybe I am exaggerating - but it would be interesting to pick a
"legacy" instrument standard (say crusty old ASTM 1394-91) and see how it
holds up.
Damon
--
This message has been scanned for content and
viruses by the DIT Information Services MailScanner
Service, and is believed to be clean.
http://www.dit.ie
-
If you have any questions about using this list,
please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
