Stef, You may also wish to scan the proposed rules on standards in Part III: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-01-13/pdf/E9-31216.pdf (sorry - couldn't find link to one with a "Federal Register" cover)
In relation to your quote - you will notice that they talk about "EHR technology". The proposed rules in Part II of CFR vol 75 no 8 are about systems adoption and measuring their use in clinical settings - much more than any focus the actual record content. While interoperability is central to the idea of "meaningful use" it is pretty basic interoperability that is being sought - much of it at codeset level. Some of us have spent years trying to emphasise these differences - but in the US they usually think of a "system" when you say "EHR" (as in the title of the former EHRVA - EHR Vendors Association). On your comment about 13606 - it is my understanding that ONC is working hard to get their own local standards groups onto the same page. It is unfortunate that proposed work such as the 13606/HL7 implementation guide and continuing engagement with HL7 on clinical statement found their way onto the back burner as these were possible grounds in which openEHR might engage with US interests. There are many people contributing to and guiding current DHHS/ONC deliberations - so it is not a question of convincing one person about the merits of 13606 - a large proportion of the US HIS vendor, standards, regulatory and health provider communities would need to be on board to have any success. The most interesting recent development was the failure of HL7v3 messaging to get a guernsey in the proposed standards; however, CDA is strongly there in the form of CCD - but ASTM and the XML-heathens appear to have succeeded in their lobbying to get CCR back onto the list (it was omitted in some earlier drafts following extensive debate) - many would see CCR as a step away from true semantic interoperability. As I am not from the US, I think I should butt out at this point and let others look at the documents for themselves - but thanks for raising the point Stef. At 22:31 14/01/2010, you wrote: >Is anybody following the current discussion in the US about the >meaningful use citeri and/or is anybody actively involved? > >The published criteria can be found here: ><http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=467405454267+0+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve>http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=467405454267+0+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve > >Is just scanned it very quickly and one thing stroke me, this is >just a pre-definition.: 'In order for an EHR technology to be >eligible for certification it must first >meet the definition of a qualified electronic health record. This >term will be defined by ONC in its upcoming interim final rule, and >we propose to use the definition of qualified electronic health >record adopted by ONC.' > >So it appears that the ONC final rule will set an important road >ahead for the coming decades. Is anybody promoting the benifits of >the 13606 standard and if not shouldn't we do that? > > >Cheers, > >Stef > > >_______________________________________________ >openEHR-technical mailing list >openEHR-technical at openehr.org >http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical J. Richard Dixon Hughes Managing Director, DH4 Pty Limited 86 Cabramatta Road, Mosman, NSW 2088 Phone: +61 (0) 2 9953 8544 Fax: +61 (0) 2 9953 6695 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100115/b8e896ac/attachment.html>
