It would be interesting to see what US-based list members think of what Michael has quoted below. Is openEHR really seen as 'controversial' in the US? (Controversy can be good - at least it means debate).
The quote below about David Uhlman being CTO of openEHR in 2001 is certainly incorrect - I imagine it is supposed to read 'OpenEMR', going by what I see here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearHealth> in Wikipedia (in any case, openEHR has never had a 'CTO' position). That's a surprisingly bad fault in O'Reilly editing; worse, the author page for David Uhlman <http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/4766> on the O'Reilly website repeats the same error. This review <http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920020110.do#PowerReview> on the same website seems to confirm a complete lack of review or editing of the original manuscript. O'Reilly obviously is missing basic mechanisms for quality control. But the more interesting question is: are the opinions in this book about openEHR representative of a US view? - thomas On 12/02/2012 11:22, Michael Osborne wrote: > I read the recently released O'Reilly book "Meaningful Use and Beyond" > on Safari books today and found the following errors > and some quite blatantly false statements about OpenEHR. > > Firstly is the claim by one of the authors, David Uhlman, that he was > CTO of openEHR in 2001 > - a claim which Thomas Beale denies. > > / > David Uhlman is CEO of ClearHealth, Inc., which created and supports > ClearHealth, > the first and only open source, meaningful use-certified, > comprehensive, ambulatory > EHR.... David entered health-care in 2001 as CTO for the OpenEHR project. > One of the first companies to try com/mercializing open source > healthcare systems/ > /, OpenEHR met face first with the difficult //realities of bringing > proven mainstream/ > /technologies into the complicated and some-/ > / > /times nonsensical world of healthcare./ > / > / > Secondly, a nonsensical statement about openEHR in the book... > p.161 > /OpenGALEN and OpenEHR are both attempts to promote open source > ontology con-/ > /cepts. Both of the projects have been maturing but some view these as > unnecessary/ > /additions or alternatives to SNOMED+UMLS. However, they are available > under open/ > /source licensing terms might make them a better alternative to SNOMED > for certain/ > /jurisdictions./ > > And this, p163... > > /OpenEHR is a controversial approach to applying knowledge engineering > principles/ > /to the entire EHR, including things like the user interfaces. You > might think of Open-/ > /EHR as an ontology for EHR software design. Many health > informaticists disagree on/ > /the usefulness of OpenEHR. Some believe that HL7 RIM, given its > comprehensive/ > /nature, is the highest level to which formal clinical knowledge > managing needs to go./ > / > / > I'm beginning to lose all respect for O'Reilly press. It's been all > downhill since the camel book. > > Cheers > Michael Osborne > / > / > > > -- > Michael Osborne > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120212/ef285b9e/attachment.html>
