Ed, In an attempt to "close the gap", I have penned an article indicating how HL7 might make use of openEHR archetypes to overcome some of the inherent shortcomings of RIM based modelling for CDA document entries.
You can read it at: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/stds/openEHR+Archetypes+for+HL7+CDA+Documents Interested in your thoughts about how this could be progressed. regards, Eric Browne Ed 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 > > > > Thomas Beale > <thomas.beale at oce > aninformatics.com To > > For openEHR technical discussions > Sent by: <openehr-technical at openehr.org> > openehr-technical cc > -bounces at openehr. > org Subject > Re: Please respond by Nov. 5th: > Known Free/Open Source > 11/06/2008 01:11 EHR/EMR Deployment Count. > PM > > > Please respond to > For openEHR > technical > discussions > <openehr-technica > l at openehr.org> > > > > > > > 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 > > * > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
