William E Hammond wrote: > Thanks. I agree that things are moving ahead. I wish we could remove some > of the animosity (maybe I am reading it worng) towards HL7 (not from you), > and close the gap between the two efforts. > > best Regards. > > *Ed,
I think think the biggest problem with respect to HL7 is the message-centric approach to clinical content modelling. I really don't understand why HL7 doesn't want to use archetypes and templates, to express clinical and related content. It works and is 'good enough' for now, and most importantly, it supports reusability - i.e. it is a single-source modelling framework. In HL7 it is very difficult to reuse an RMIM for a display screen, a data capture form, as a basis for generating a piece of code, and as a source of any number of XML-based outputs, including messages (these are now working in production), also PDF and HTML variants. Let alone as a basis for writing re-usable queries and expressing Snomed data bindings. The querying is working in real systems now, and we are working in earnest with IHTSDO on the Snomed side of things. It's not perfect of course, and more work is required in areas like representation of process (e.g. care plans), but the reuse capability is very high. Now, groups of clinicians working on archetypes and Snomed have already expressed the desire not to have to rebuild what they create in HL7 messages or CDA templates or any other concrete technology. Nor do we want to have to write queries that are specific to each of these forms, or define more than one kind of Snomed binding. - thomas *
