Hi Heath, I complety agree with you. Let's all do what we're best at. What I would like to add to your proposal is some feedback (both ways) so doctors and technicians can learn from eachother. Rather than de- empowering the one or the other I think we should team up to create a properly working system that really adds value for the citizens/ patient who are the subject of this all.
Also as I clinician I really would like an understandable (at technical lay-mans level) manual with clear examples who things can work and why some solutions shoudl be avoided. Maybe some best- practices of whatever you like to call that Cheers, Stef Op 23 jun 2009, om 02:15 heeft Heath Frankel het volgende geschreven: > Hi Tim, > Thank you for your post, I complete agree. Like you I am not a > clinician > and feel that I am rocking the establishment of openEHR and the > principles > of Archetypes by saying this, but I strongly believe that we need to > have a > technical review process of archetypes before they are published. > What I am > looking to review is not related to the clinical content, but the > patterns > used to represent that clinical content. In particular, I would > looking to > ensure that we have single concept representation, loose coupling, > reusability, appropriate use of specialisation, and most importantly I > believe, appropriate structures to support querying. These are all > good > object-oriented (or general software) design principles that > technicians are > trained to be better at then clinicians. > > As part of the archetype governance and publishing process, I would > like to > see a technical review process. > > I realise I am writing to a group of technicians on this list and > this is > probably a topic for the clinical list, but I think there probably are > enough clinicians on this technical list to knock me around if they > feel > that I am rocking it too hard. > > Please understand that I not trying to re-empower the technician, I am > simply looking for good quality knowledge artefacts and believe this a > process that is missing in the current archetype development process. > > Regards > > Heath > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr- >> technical- >> bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook >> Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 9:59 AM >> To: For openEHR technical discussions >> Subject: Concept Overload Caution >> >> Hi All, >> >> The past 3 or 4 subjects on this list takes me back to conversations >> that we had before (maybe several years ago?) when we were discussing >> slots and links. Maybe they were here maybe they were on the ARB >> list. >> I do not recall now. >> >> But my feeling in both of these areas are that there is a tendency >> for >> archetype developers to create archetypes that are more than one >> clinical concept. IIRC, that is about the time that templates were >> being thought of/designed to alleviate the pressure on archetypes to >> serve everyone, everywhere. >> >> As Heath has just mentioned, templates are the better place for this >> type of grouping. They tend to provide that ability to be more >> localized. Remember that when you are creating or reusing archetypes >> that they should be universally reusable. If they are not, then they >> do not meet the basic requirement of being a single clinical concept. >> This is fundamental to openEHR being future proof. >> >> The misuse of slots and probably any use of links in a particular >> archetype; IMHO is a very bad thing and will lead us down the road >> that >> we see with data model centric systems as opposed to our information >> model. >> >> While I am not a clinician nor a lab tech I do ask those of you >> creating archetypes to review the fundamental principles of >> archetypes >> and templates. Then think twice before publishing an artifact. >> >> From what I am reading I think that there is becoming a tendency to >> put >> too much runtime functionality into what is supposed to be singular >> data items. >> >> My 2 cents/pence/centavos >> >> --Tim >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Timothy Cook, MSc >> Health Informatics Research & Development Services LinkedIn >> Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook >> Skype ID == timothy.cook >> ************************************************************** >> *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * >> *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* >> ************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
