Considering the incorrect reference to openEHR in the author's CTO position, without knowing conext of were it is done, perhaps all references were intended to be to openEMR?
Heath On 12/02/2012 11:31 PM, "Thomas Beale" <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > > 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 commercializing 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 listopenEHR-technical at > openehr.orghttp://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > * > * > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120214/7925255b/attachment.html>
