Thanks Pablo It's great to see the proposals generate these discussions, which was our intention as these discussions were needed..
Regarding tools, I'm a keen advocate for open source tools and believe better tools will be key to more widespread use of openEHR.. ..but know I you cant get them for free, so if we want more tools we can share... -the community needs to agreed a prioritised set of open source tools -we need to establish how much they will cost -we need to find ways to channel funds from those who need the tools to those who are willing to do the work.. regards, Tony Dr. Tony Shannon Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals Clinical Lead for Informatics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals Honorary Research Fellow, University College London +44.789.988 5068 tony.shannon at nhs.net On 07/09/2011 18:49, pablo pazos wrote: > Hi David, > > You mention a big issue: we want to build local archetype and template > repositories but we don't have the tools to do it in a coordinated way > with the openEHR CKM. > > I think it would be great to have an open & free CKM to start with, and > a common generic API to connect our local CKMs to regional CKMs and > regional CKMs to the global CKM in a controlled way (in this scenario > the versioning of artefacts is a big issue and I think it is not solved > at the tool level yet). > > AFAIK the to install the global CKM we have to buy some licenses. > > -- > Kind regards, > Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez > LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez > Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos<http://twitter.com/ppazos> > > > Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 17:47:09 +0100 > > From: rmhidxi at live.ucl.ac.uk > > To: openehr-clinical at openehr.org; Martin.Severs at port.ac.uk > > Subject: Re: openEHR Transition Announcement (about regional/national > openehr organizations) > > > > Just to say, I think it would be great to support the excellent efforts > > represented in this discussion, to work towards locally governed > > repositories of archetypes/templates, evolving synergistically in the > > sort of way being outlined. There is an important parallel with > > requirements for governance of terminology. > > > > I tried very hard to align openEHR within the IHTSDO governance > > framework for combining local and global initiative for this sort of > > entity, but failed in this because the politics was too hard, as we > > reported at the time. IHTSDO seemed, and to me still seems to have the > > greatest chance of achieving useful progress towards effective standards > > and governance for clinical content, and openEHR should stay as close as > > possible to them in this, I believe. There are many clinical and > > professional issues still to be explored and resolved as to how > > terminology and archetypes should best coexist within such a framework. > > There are also licensing issues and realistically the licensing of > > archetypes for use in patient care at different levels will have to be > > acceptable to those groups responsible for ethico-legal standards that > > regulate the clinical professions, and, more immediately, for control of > > the licensing of international terminologies. Thus archetype/template > > licensing was always bound to be a very thorny and politicised issue for > > openEHR and, as a board charged with protecting the openEHR IP for the > > ultimate good of the healthcare community, we had to hear arguments from > > both within and outside the Foundation in deciding how we should hold > > the position. In truth, no one really knows how this issue will play out > > and we have to remain flexible in our policy, as we have said. I have > > been involved in working groups at a national level on reform of > > copyright law, where the kind of argument that is put forward within > > openEHR lists is advocated for publication more widely, with similar > > push back from interests dependent on controlling completely legitimate > > special interests. For what it's worth, I personally am in favour of > > society moving towards minimally restrictive licensing of knowledge > > artefacts, such as archetypes and terminologies, consistent with good > > order. I recognise that the many different perspectives in play about > > the underlying issues mean there will be fierce debate and honest > > disagreement about what that means and how it can be achieved. 'Twas > > ever thus! > > > > One of the huge difficulties I have observed over the past few years or > > so has been the ever growing number of ab initio and, in terms of > > outcome, mutually destructive, efforts to define and create standardised > > clinical content repositories - from hospital provider and clinical > > specialty to national, company product, regional and international > > levels. This is happening in many domains beyond healthcare, of course. > > There is a need for much more experiment in evolving good practice but > > there will never, I feel, be complete unification of such entities. Even > > if by some gargantuan effort, something is established globally, it > > would tend to fragment at more local levels, much as language itself has > > an organic existence between the universal and the local forms. Not > > easy to accommodate this basic truth when building and seeking to meet > > the evolving requirements of what are essentially very complex > > socio-technical entities like standard repositories of clinical content! > > What is needed, in my mind, is effective and accessible tooling to > > support shared discipline and methodological approach to these > > challenges, such that there can be improved, but never perfect or > > enduring, interoperability between domains. That's where openEHR has > > been trying to help things move forward. > > > > One final point, here. The marrying of global and local data in computer > > systems is being highlighted all over the place, well beyond the > > confines of health care records, although it's probably true that the > > health record carries one of the most complex set of requirements in > > this regard. I have seen it called the problem of 'hyper' but have no > > idea why that term is used. I suspect there may be useful research to be > > done in looking across 'hyper' requirements in a variety of different > > domains where content repositories are being built. Maybe one of the > > university groups active in openEHR is taking or might take an interest > > in this topic. > > > > David I > > > > > > On 07/09/2011 09:24, Ian McNicoll wrote: > > Thanks Erik, > > > > These feel like very sound proposals, in particular the focus on > > bottom-up local development. > > > > Pablo, Shinji - would Erik's suggestions be the kind of support that > > you would hope to have? > > > > 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 7 September 2011 08:31, Erik Sundvall<erik.sundvall at liu.se> wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 08:38, Ian McNicoll > > > <Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > > >> So, my question back, is > > >> "What sort of support would you like to see, given that significant > > >> central resourcing is not likely in the short term?" > > > [...] > > >> Would it be sufficient for the Foundation to give 'official status' to > > >> regional affiliates e.g. openEHR Japan, or are there other practical > > >> suggestions as to how best to support regional affiliates? > > > I would guess that an 'official status' recognition and thus links in > > > online (and some offline) information resources would be a major > > > thing, more imoportant than funding, especially if this also allowed > > > the regional organisation to arrange "official" openEHR > > > gatherings/conferences etc. It would be reasonable if the local > > > organisation could keep money left over from such (possibly partly > > > commercially sponsored) gatherings/conferences. > > > > > > Of course it would be reasonable if the foundation had some > > > requirements on official local organisations, like having: > > > - open membership > > > - statutes matching regional democratic traditions and the openEHR > > > goals (internal governance rules or whatever the swedish word > > > "stadgar" should be translated to) > > > - proper accounting and audit > > > - a duty to have a dialogue with the central openEHR foundation > > > regarding plans involving using the openEHR tradmark for events etc > > > - ...probably more... > > > > > > For local organisations I think bottom up comunity driven governance > > > with elected boards etc is the only way to go, not top-down. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Erik Sundvall > > > erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > openEHR-clinical mailing list > > > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > > > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openEHR-clinical mailing list > > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical > > _______________________________________________ > > openEHR-clinical mailing list > > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical -- ******************************************************************************************************************** This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it. Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation. NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and GSi recipients NHSmail provides an email address for your career in the NHS and can be accessed anywhere For more information and to find out how you can switch, visit www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/nhsmail ********************************************************************************************************************
