Dear All, I do agree with a more national or collective approach, however, these initiatives take longer to adopt among the right people due to the lack of understanding from authorities at that level about clinical concepts. They see clinical models as part of a simple health business or another workflow within healthcare.
Consequently, for this type of work and the time frame required for archetypes, both approaches are acceptable but they must have the both options, since the later ( National or accreditation approach) may take for ever. Politicians and government authorities may not see this as a priority for information systems design or development. Sincerely, Carol Dr Hullin Senior Business Analysts HeatlhSmart Initiative Office of Information Systems Department of Human Services Victoria Australia From: [email protected] To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: RE: Improving Translation_details and other_contributors ? Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:39:16 +0200 Dear Sebastian, Translations of medical (health) archetypes have parts in common with translations of medical (health) terminology systems. One example of translation projects of medical terminology systems is the Swedish SNOMED CT translation project. The project is approximately halfway of the translation of all active descriptions of the type ?preferred term? from English to Swedish. The number of descriptions the project has to translate is around 300,000. In this project is normally each description translated by one translator. The translation is then first inspected by one other translator and then inspected by a translation editorial office. The translation is then verified by relevant health care personnel. As far as I know will the translated descriptions be marked as part of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare?s official translation of SNOMED CT. However, the names of the people involved in the translation and which organisations they belong to will only be known inside the translation project. It seems also to be the same case for other translations of terminology system into Swedish. I therefore think that in some cases are the accreditation association much more important than the name and demographic information about the translators. I therefore think that a more proper model is accreditation : String 0..1 -- Accreditation of translator, usually a national translator?s association id translation_contributors : Hash<String,String,String> 0..1 -- Role, name and other demographic details for contributors in the translation process Regards, Mikael From: [email protected] [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Garde Sent: den 23 juni 2009 10:25 To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Improving Translation_details and other_contributors ? Dear all, Ian, Heather and I have raised an issue at http://www.openehr.org/issues/browse/SPECPR-24 for improving the Translation_details and other_contributors. What seems to be current practice is that a translation will be done by more than one person and documenting this is not really supported by the model: TRANSLATION_DETAILS accreditation : String 1 -- Accreditation of translator, usually a national translator?s association id author : Hash<String,String> 1 -- Translator name and other demographic details Only one translator is available. The easiest change would be to make author repeatable, but accreditation (which seems to be somewhat detached from the author anyway) would need to be changed then as well - is accreditation that important that it couldn't be captured as part of the author Hash or what is the reason for having it separate? The other problem we have is with other_contributors not sticking to the same format (i.e. we only have a list of contributors without more formal metadata): RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION original_author : Hash<String,String> 1 -- Original author of this resource, with all relevant details, including organisation. other_contributors : List<String> 0..1 -- Other contributors to the resource, probably listed in ?name ? form. I think I understand why it is modelled as it is, but why not allow other_contributors to be 0..* Hash<String,String> ? Maybe, we need to look into formalising what an author/translator is a bit more in the model? Are there any suggestions for a better model of this? Or something from DCM or CDA or others on which we could base such a model to be compatible with? Regards Sebastian _________________________________________________________________ POP access for Hotmail is here! Click here to find out more http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=802246 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090624/950b95a7/attachment.html>
