Hi! I read at http://www.ehealtheurope.net/news/5531/va_and_kaiser_pilot_record_sharing that VA and Kaiser are looking at sharing parts (or summaries) of EHRs. A quote from the link:
...Dr Robert M. Smith, chief of staff of the VA San Diego Healthcare System, as comparing the importance of the electronic health information program to the first moon landing, "much like President Kennedy's charge, we're going to take President Obama's charge [to create a nationwide EHR system] and move forward quickly."... If they move past summaries and are serious about sharing complete records later they will sooner or later (probably) come to the conclusion that one needs to agree on semantics at the point of data entry instead of only at the point of exchange if one wants to avoid the need for manual reinterpretation for every record exchange. (The conversion task of complete EHRs will in many cases not have an algorithmic solution, and thus no matter the number or quality of standards they choose/create for exchange, a computer system won't be able to solve it safely.) When they the conclusion above, then openEHRs approach to the "moon landing" of components, tools and processes for agreeing on semantics at the point of data entry might become interesting. That might become a time for increased openEHR interest in the US. Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 (Mail & tel. recently changed, so please update your contact lists.) On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 17:52, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > On 14/01/2010 11:31, Stef Verlinden 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 > 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? > > > > well before we do that, someone at ISO/CEN needs to think about a profile > for 21090 data types (in reality HL7v3 data types tidied up and enhanced > somewhat) that can work for 13606 or indeed anyone not using HL7v3 messages. > See > http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/stds/openEHR+to+ISO+13606-1%2C+ISO+21090+mapping > for details. > > - thomas beale
