Bert Verhees wrote: > Hi, > > Is it possible to find information about the pro's and contra's of OpenEhr > compared to GEHR (HealthOne)? > > HealthOne has the advantage that it already is build on a proven concept, and > has binaries which are thoroughly tested on the market. > But it is not OpenSource, which is a disadvantage. > Health.one is built on the GEHR models from 10 years ago. There were no archetypes, and no differentiation of Entry types or data structures; also only a rudimentary model of version control (which I was responsible for defining in the GEHR project). In short - based on a very simplistic reference model which is 10 years' back in the genetic history of openEHR. > Besides that, more important is how OpenEhr differs as a result now or in > future. > > Let me explain what I have seen from Healthone. > > It has an archetype-kind of layer. it will be extended to compatibility to > OpenEhr archetypes, I was told. > The archetypes are build of medical-terms, I called it Dictionary, yesterday. > It is a list of 6000 terms, in five languages, it can be extended if needed. > But you need HealthOne to do that, or else other Healthone users cannot read > your records fully. > Chances are not may that ever a HealthOne system will read records directly. > Mostly they will have to be translated to an intermediate format, like > Edifact, which is in the Netjherlands used a lot. > > What are possible weaknesses in this design, and how does OpenEhr solve this? > Are there other weaknesses in GEHR (Healthone)?, if there was none, then > progress would hardly be possible ;-) > I can't comment on the current version of Health.one, but I don't believe it has archetypes. It probably could be re-engineered to have them though. The advantage of openEHR is that an openEHR system can import and export its data in openEHR format (publicly defined XML-schemas) and CEN EN13606 format (also publicly defined, and a European standard). Tools and methods will also be available to import HL7v2 messages; we are developing some in Australia.
The ideal proposal for Health.one in the future is to marry its front-end to an openEHR back-end. - thomas
