William E Hammond wrote: > Thomas, > > I am very impressed with these statistics. I was not aware of the > penetration of openEHR into that volume of use. Congratulations for a hugh > success. Can you help me identify the actual systems that are in use in > Australia, Netherlands and Brazil. I am specifically interested in the EHR > systems that use openEHR. We need to build on those successes. > > Thanks for sharing this information. > > Best Regards, > > Ed Hammond > *Ed,
I should stress that these are pure openEHR systems; systems based on archetypes of some kind include Systematic (SSE) in Aarhus, Denmark, and Obstet in Australia. Both companies have expressed serious interest in 'going official', and I happen to know that their architectures are sufficiently close to the archetype / template idea that it is feasible. I dont have any numbers on EHRs in these systems but I would expect in the hundreds of thousands, based on the catchment areas they serve. Although I said at the beginning that I don't think it is that useful a statistic, it's not a bad brut measure of uptake, so let's see if we can gather some better numbers, for interest's sake. One reason for success of at least our own EHR server (Ocean Informatics) is that its performance is good - sub-0.5 second for everything so far, with a typical concurrent load equivalent to about a 1,000 bed hospital. I don't yet have performance numbers for harder population queries, but mundane population queries across 10,000 - 250,000 EHRs are fast. This isn't the place to advertise, but I think it is reasonable to at least allow the community to know that real performance is indeed possible and feasible to implement in openEHR. If others agree, it may be the time to do a bit of a poll and start putting harder data on the 'who is using it' webpage. - thomas *
