IYou apparently misread my comment. The mountains of money I assume you
mean UK was spent on many things, including archetypes. Great. I don't
understand the comment "I know for a fact that the outcomes (using v3) are
not seen as good value. I have heard the opposite from those people who
spendt a lot of money. In any case, it is a value proposition. We use v2
at Duke because it works for us, and we control the environment. CDA is a
v23 product - based on the HL7 RIM. Thanks for the compliment that CDA is
findoing great use. I declare that success.
I don;'t care if the throw the red ball, roll the red nball, or toss the
red ball as long as I know it is a red ball.
To all: I recognize that Thanksgiving is uniquely a US Holiday, but permit
me to wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving. I think we all have a lot to be
thankful for - including the friendship and the opportunity to voice
different experiences. Now, my turkey is calling. It is a family time -
for us all.
Best
W. Ed Hammond, Ph.D.
Director, Duke Center for Health Informatics
Thomas Beale
<thomas.beale at oce
aninformatics.com To
> openehr-technical at openehr.org
Sent by: cc
openehr-technical
-bounces at openehr. Subject
org Re: HL7 modelling approach
11/25/2010 12:01
PM
Please respond to
For openEHR
technical
discussions
<openehr-technica
l at openehr.org>
I have not seen much evidence of widespread uptake of HL7v3, indeed Stan
and others have said in various places that it has been significantly lower
than expected. CDA is the one thing that is getting use. The few large
implementations have spent a MOUNTAIN of money to do what they did, and I
know for a fact that the outcomes are not seen as good value.
See here for what appears to be a reasonable outline of the status quo -
http://www.hl7standards.com/blog/2007/10/10/preparing-for-hl7-v3/
I don't believe changing the RIM, 21090 and other models (apart from CDA)
would have that much negative impact on the industry as a whole, but if the
changes were radical enough, they could help a lot.
I currently don't have time to submit endless feedback to HL7 processes,
especially when I know they will not be listened to. I can't imagine that
HL7 is going fix its basic modelling methodology, which is what it needs to
do. I have actually provided very detailed critiques in the past, and
nothing has happened (other than blocking). Today I just have to be
concerned with things that are going to be economically implementable by
normal programmers, correct and safe. I realise that openEHR still has to
solve some things to make that true (mainly to do with better and more
openly available Operational Template downstream generators), but at least
we don't (for the most part) have models that just cannot achieve
interoperability. In openEHR, every single installation of any major
version of openEHR, anywhere in the world, is 100% safe for data creation,
readability, and interoperability. It is the same schema forever, for all
clinical and demographic data, within any given major release.
I believe that the openEHR methodology provides a pretty good framework for
a) safe data, b) interoperable data, c) data reuse, d) implementable
software, and e) being domain driven (via archetypes). I just can't use any
HL7 models to do anything useful in the EHR space.
- thomas
p.s. if v3 was so good and easy, I am pretty sure Stan would have
introduced it at IHC.
On 25/11/2010 17:31, William E Hammond wrote:
HL7 is following basic modeling procedures in the minds of a lot of
people.
HL7 and CDISC, for example, have worked together to produce BRIDG. A
large
number of international technologists have and are contributing to
HL7. I
agree that RIM has problems. RIM evolved early on from data models.
Decisions were made by a number of people who at that time believed
that
was the approach. Stan Huff is leading a TF to look at some of these
issues (Graham is part of that TF). WHat changes will be made? I
don't
know. The problem is further complicated in that the current model
has
been used in a lot of applications. Thise applications work, even
though
many of us believe there is a better way. Those changes have to be
made
against an implemented set. I do urge you to submit your criticisms
to the
HL7 Technical Steering Committee and to John Quinn, the HL7 CTO. Or
to
Stan HUff.
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
