There is no HL7. It is an organization with many members. Most people who
believe that HL7 is just message-centric are outside people, plus, I admit,
some are in HL7. In my opinion, the CDA, and certainly level 3, are
templates/archetypes in compositiopn. I further believe that the CDA will
adopt clinical statements. On the other hand, I find that messaging still
has its place.
Given that, I think openEHR has excellent archetypes that have intellectual
value. In my opinion, there is considerable interest in archetypes in HL7.
I particularly believe the board is committed to this direction. We
certainly have several persons on the board that are strongly committed to
that direction. Thinking HL7 as only message-centric is coupled with v2 of
which there is still a strong following.
I think the furture will be different.
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 05:20 EHR/EMR Deployment Count.
PM
Please respond to
For openEHR
technical
discussions
<openehr-technica
l at openehr.org>
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
*
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
