Greg Caulton wrote: > It makes sense, but I will have to find time to dig into the > differences between the EHR and Demographic reference model classes > and understand why they need to be different. >
Greg, you can see the demographic model at http://www.openehr.org/uml/release-1.0.1/Browsable/_9_5_76d0249_1118674798473_6021_0Report.html ; you will see that the lower structural classes like ITEM_STRUCTURE, all the data types etc are shared across the demographic and EHR models (all the models are at http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TAGS/Release-1.0.1/publishing/architecture/computable/UML/uml_start_view.html) It's all the same reference model really, just different upper parts of it for different business purposes. > And then determine once we have added one more reference model class, > how many more will need to be added to achieve a standalone HIS to > address administrative processes - billing, admission, discharge etc. > > At this point it doesn't seem to make sense to build a new > administrative reference model for the non-EHR content. Better to > stick with HL7 and other standards than to reinvent the wheel. > not that this is likely to happen in the short term, but HL7 doesn't have any non-message oriented, archetype-enabled models for any of the above... - thomas beale
