I haven't read any of this in detail but I would agree with Erik. If openEHR/EN13606 is to get any traction on the US this is likely to come from individual vendor interest rather than at govt level. We already have several professional bodies in the US using openEHR to model their professional standards and there are vendors / local providers such as VA, Kaiser and Intermountain who have a much better understanding of the challenges of growing and maintaining semantic coherence. We are just starting to be able to demonstrate that the archetype based approach has significant advantages in this highly complex area and is probably the only really scalable and controllable mechanism. The big interoperability success in the UK (GP2GP project) arose from close and continued vendor involvement with a very 'maximal dataset' like approach to the harmonisation of information structures.
Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com ian at mcmi.co.uk Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics openEHR Archetype Editorial Group Member BCS Primary Health Care SG Group www.phcsg.org / BCS Health Scotland 2010/1/15 Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se> > 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/<http://www.imt.liu.se/%7Eerisu/> 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 > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100115/1c541868/attachment.html>
