In een bericht met de datum 13-9-2006 23:44:53 West-Europa (zomertijd), schrijft Thomas.Beale at OceanInformatics.biz:
> > > The main difference architecturally is that there in openEHR there is a > reference model from which software and systems can be built. Archetypes > and templates simply designate legal configurations of instances of the > reference model. In HL7, the data are instances of schemas that are > progressively refined from the RIM. In recent discussions with the > designers, they claim that the theory of DIMs, RMIMs etc is based on > "relational projections" on the RIM (i.e. that's the basis of attribute > "removal"). Anyway, the end result is a schema per message. > Sometimes a set of schema's even to also refer to generic message parts. However, once this set of messages per domain is ready, it can be used over and over and over. It is stable along clinical domains, as we have proven in different projects in the Netherlands. Key is that there is a data specification and mapping per clinical domain. Here the archetype / templates come into place. Once the mapping is made for common data, they can be carried over from one clinical domain to the other. E.g. the bloodpressure archetype / template / mapping table specification does not differ between domain of stroke care or domain of general surgery, it is common knowledge and reusable. We are currently working on harmonizing the procedures to specify the clinical knowledge, to model it once and to use tools to transform between OpenEHR, HL7 v3 and other technical solutions. > Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote: > > > > > > on the detailed level the archetypes in CEN 13606 and in HL7 v3 the > > templates and R-MIMs for specific care statements, cover the smallest > > molecules of clinical data. > > examples of the latter can be found at www.zorginformatiemodel.nl > you can see the openEHR archetypes at > http://svn.openehr.org/knowledge/archetypes/dev/index.html > > > > A problem with the archetype approach (see the definition of this in > > open EHR and 13606) is that it does not address the clinical > > vocabulary which is included in HL7 v3 R-MIM approaches and > > it does not tackle the clinical knowledge base that explains why some > > data have to fit together and why a relationship has to be kept. (E.g. > > for scientific instruments and scales). > this is a problem I was unaware of William, can you elaborate with an > example? > > Yes, it is currently not possible in the archetype editor to define the goal of an instrument, have a abstract of the evidence base in the clinical world underpinning it, work instructions, interpretation guidelines, references to the literature or websites per archetype. It should not be too difficult to add this and then it would be useful tool for any standard development once Grahame Greave has done his tooling work. William -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060914/7cce4589/attachment.html>
