Of course, it depends on the definition of singlesource modeling. HL7 is
pursuing a course that uses a common process but multiple expert groups to
create the clinical content. I also think we still do not know how far to
take templates/architypes. For example, I think developing a template for
a general physical examination will never be used by the diverse clinical
community.
The real question is how will openEhr and HL7 work together. We we compete
with a tension in each contact, will we work separately with redundancy and
mapping from one group to another, or will we find a process that permits
use to work jointly. I personally think the clinical content of templates
is by far the most valuable component of this work. We could live with
mapping - although in my opinion, this is not the best result.
There are many variables and we obviously need a dedicated commitment to
making something work. Perhaps ISO is the vehicle for that interaction.
Both groups seem to be moving ahead with success in both groups. Maybe
that is what will be for the moment. I don't know if an unbiased
discussion is possible, because the players for both sides think we are
doing it the correct way. And there is also that thing called momentum.
I read and remember your comments on groups developing standards earlier
inthe year. Ideally we will be able to choose a course of action designed
to produce the best results.
Thanks for the exchange.
Ed Hammond
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
11/07/2008 01:33 Source EHR/EMR Deployment
PM Count.
Please respond to
For openEHR
technical
discussions
<openehr-technica
l at openehr.org>
William E Hammond wrote:
> 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.
>
>
*
With respect to clinical modelling I hope it will. Along with others, I
have spent years trying to convince HL7 that single-source modelling was
a good idea and worth pursuing. I hope there are enough results around
in the various national programmes, commercial products, and
universities to convince someone. If we can agree on this we can all
move forward much faster.
- thomas
*
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
