2011/12/16 Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se> > > > If so, why do you want to turn the 13606/openEHR into something > "healthcare a-specific"? Wouldn't that be an enormous deviation from > the current 13606 thinking and purpose? Was not 13606 intended exactly > for healthcare? > > > Well, in fact current EN13606 RM is nearly healthcare independent, except the "EHR_EXTRACT" class name, the attributes "ehr_system", "ehr_id", "subject_of_care" and "healthcare_facility" and the demographic model. The class and attribute names can be easily changed to drop the EHR part and for the demographic package I think that the one of openEHR is much better and, in fact, it is already healthcare independent.
In any case, this generic design is a result of the current scope of 13606: EHR exchange and not a complete EHR implementation specification. From our experience, interoperability between legacy systems (standard-based or not) is much easier using a generic model for exchange. The harsh truth is that the quality of the data and the design of information structures in existing EHR systems is quite bad or unclear, thus making really complicated the process of automatically transforming it to a very specific reference model. This is not the case when we use 13606. A different thing is if 13606 scope changes during the revision. In that case, I agree that reducing layers of modelling by introducing specific classes will make the systems more efficient. David -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111216/43915127/attachment.html>
