Hi Joaquim, Just to add to Hugh's excellent comments. One of the issues you will find is that it is sometimes impossible to harmonise all the competing perspectives, even for something as seemingly simple as demographics. The archetype driven approach, with maximal dataset philosophy, allows these competing views to co-exist, very visibly and acts as a spur for future harmonisation. 'Minimal dataset' philosophies lose this knowledge and any future attempts at rationalisation essentially have to start from scratch. So, as well, as capturing shared, agreed requirements, we are also capturing dissent, which we can try again to resolve in the future.
You should have a look at the Demographics model archetypes on CKM at www.openehr.org/knowledge e.g. Person http://www.openehr.org/knowledge/OKM.html#showArchetype_1013.1.479 We have had a few discussions with openMRS people in the past, and I am sure there is real value in collaboration. I think the archetype methodology and review process would be of great value, even if openEHR was not used formally at the back-end of openMRS systems. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414 994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org On 3 August 2011 08:44, Hugh Leslie <hugh.leslie at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > Hi Joaquin > > Just to add another? view... > > The issue of openMRS implementations having different representations of the > same thing is a common problem across clinical systems everywhere.? Its this > problem that is one of the things that we are trying to solve with > archetypes.? In general, what we find is that most clinical concept > representations in clinical systems are subsets (based on a use case) of a > fully specified concept.? What we try to do in the archetypes is produce the > fully specified concept and then constrain it for all the use cases.? The > different names that you see used for different concepts are not just > language dependent, but are also region and usage dependent.? This is also > usually a? matter of constraining the archetype or using a particular > terminology subset to represent the information. > > What openEHR offers openMRS is a single way of representing clinical > information that becomes a logical record architecture.? If openMRS adopted > this approach, then any openMRS system could immediately share information > with any other even if the other system hadn't seen the information before. > It also means that the burden of developing high quality, clinician > validated information models is shifted away from the application developer > to a global or regional space.? This is going to become more and more > critical, as we try to capture more complex clinical information and compute > on it as well as share it. > > regards Hugh > > On 3/08/2011 3:29 AM, Blaya, Joaquin Andres wrote: > > Hi, > Apologies in advance if this is the incorrect email list for this topic, but > I thought it was the most relevant. > > I'm a member of OpenMRS and there we are discussion a way to have users > share the concepts (a limited form of an archetype) created in their > systems. This means that for a single concept you could have many concepts > from different implementations. This could be because of language or because > different words refer to the same concept. For example, Gender in the US > might be Sex in another country and Sexo in spanish. > > I would like to see if OpenEHR has solved this problem so that perhaps > OpenMRS could begin to use archetypes. > > Thanks > > Joaquin > > om > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >
