On 29/10/2010 17:18, pablo pazos wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> My opinion is the grade of adoption of a standard depend in some
> aspects of goverment agencies, in some of the industry and some of the
> academy.
>
> DICOM is a good example of an open standard heavily supported by the
> industry, that's the point of it success. Can't be OpenEHR a de-facto
> standard for EHRs? Like DICOM is for imaging. I think yes, but the
> progress of OpenEHR to solve real the problems and make it usable, is
> slow.
>
> I think OpenEHR is strong on the academy area. It has poor industry
> penetration (I mean enterprises developing tools and aplying a good
> part of the OpenEHR specification in their systems, and that these
> systems where used in some hospitals). I don't know what's the
> penetration of OpenEHR on goverment agencies. There are some open
> tools but there is some stillness on making improvements on them.
>
>
> For example, here in Latin America, almost nobody knows about OpenEHR
> in the industry area, and very very few knows about it in the academy
> area.
>
> There are some ideas that may help de difusion and adoption of OpenEHR:
>
> - I think that regional OpenEHR communities are needed to empower the
> adoption and spreading of the standard. In 2009 I send a message to
> the mailing lists, but I get no answer from the community (this mail
> is below). Now we have 36 members from Uruguay, Argentina, Chile,
> Colombia, Spain, and more. They work on goverment agencies, big
> enterprises (like IBM), developers and physicians. I think the
> international OpenEHR community needs to support these regional
> communities, providing guidelines, general objectives, and following
> their work. Here in South America, only few people know about OpenEHR,
> that's a shame. People in goverment are making decissions, without
> knowing that are good and open standards out there.
>
> - Formal training and education in OpenEHR is needed. It's very hard
> to the newcomer to understand how to use OpenEHR, and people
> interested on the main ideas of OpenEHR may be dissapointed when they
> try to use it in a real-world software application. People in the
> industry must be trained, but how many OpenEHR trainers are out there?
not enough yet ;-)
But there are two things that will improve the situation:
* with the arrival of better, more open tooling for templates and
operational templates, and downstream transformations, much of the
need to understand the mechanics of openEHR goes away; software
developers can use the generated products, which could be openEHR
XSDs, or even HL7v2 message definitions.
* in the future we would aim for more web-available self learning
material
>
> In Set-2010 I've done a hands-on OpenEHR tutorial in Argentina, and
> people (medics and TIC people) where amazed about building their
> archetypes and having a tool that generates the EHR (this is my degree
> project). This was done in the context of the "Argentine Congress of
> informatics and Health 2010". Now, the organizers want to make more
> time to discuss OpenEHR and its posibilities. This is just an example
> that great things can happen if someone has interest.
>
> Regional OpenEHR communities can build courses fucused on the regional
> needs, may be made some money to support the open tool development (*).
this is the key; to get the money, authorities need to be convinced it
is a) going to do what they need and b) not going to isolate them. They
are very scared of the second, even though it is not rational (since
most of the standards in their comfort zone really don't work that well,
and not at all together).
>
> - Building and supporting open tools. The current tools have no
> regular updates. We need developers to build new tools and improve the
> current tools. We can use the money of the training courses (*) to pay
> developers to do this job. If this depends only on the free time we
> have, tools just can die before they are implemented.
actually, the ADL workbench and Archetype Editor are constantly being
updated. However, I only just realised that the link for the latter is
not visible. I will look into this.
>
> - In order to help any goverment adoption of OpenEHR, the decission
> makers have some questions that today OpenEHR can't answer.
> - What is the state of the standard?
> - Is it stable?
> - Wich parts are stable?
should be fairly clear from the release page,
http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/roadmap.html
> - Is there any return of investment study done on efective use of
> OpenEHR?
that's a harder question ;-)
> - Or just, how much time and money I have to spend to effectively
> use OpenEHR in a real world application? (I have to train people to
> make things happen, not in an investigation project, but in a
> production project)
> - What real world products are using OpenEHR?
> - How these products are using OpenEHR? (they adopt the RM? the AOM?
> the SM?)
>
> There is page on "who is using OpenEHR" in the portal, but it is
> outdated. My proposal is to do regular polls on the community in order
> to know: who is working on what, and how they're using OpenEHR.
more up to date information would be good, however the information there
is not more than about 18months out of date, and in some cases more
recent. However, there is much activity that has no entry at all in
these pages - it would be good to obtain information on that.
>
> - Formal links with "formal" SDOs are needed. I think that OMG is in
> tune with the way OpenEHR do things. They have the COAS standard, and
> OpenEHR RM is mapped to COAS. This is a good starting point to have
> something in common.
in fact, there are ongoing talks with IHTSDO about close cooperation and
development. Making someting happen in the 'official' standards space is
the key. Currently, many governments have been too scared to go away
from the official standards, even though they have had little success
with them
>
> I think there are very good posibilities in the OpenEHR adoption on
> the industry adn goverment areas, but we need to build improve the
> lines of action of the community to reach that.
>
agree.
- thomas
>
> Just my humble opinions.
> Best regards,
> - Pablo.*
> *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101102/b3f564f2/attachment.html>
