Op 18-02-2012 22:24, pablo pazos schreef: > The key here is that within an openEHR based system, other standards > like HL7, DICOM, SNOMED, MeSH, UMLS, ICD10, ... could be implemented > to, each one for it's own task. > Supplementary to what Pablo wrote, I have a real life example.
In the Netherlands, HL7v3 messaging would have become mandatory for every Health-related-system, from the kitchen in a health-institution, a GP-system, or a medical-specialist system. The idea was (very simply said) to create a message-oriented "network" where all these systems should connect. Every health-related system was expected to run Hl7v3 messaging on top of it, or the system would be excluded from this "network" and, as a result, possibly also excluded from business in healthcare. So the pressure was big, and most systems succeeded in producing and reading HL7 messages. Most systems, of a big variety, architectural, platform, etc, can now implement HL7v3 messaging, an OpenEHR-system, with all its flexibility can also. --- At last the HL7v3 "network" failed, because of privacy-reasons (simply stated), but maybe it gets a second chance, but that will take some years to the next senate-change, and it will not be easy. Then a strange thing happened in the Netherlands. Now the HL7v3 network failed, for reasons which have nothing to do with HL7v3, many systems hurried to go back to the messaging standards they used before. That is mainly Edifact messages and HL7 v 2.x. Defined 15 years ago or more. The old working horses. (an OpenEHR system can also produce these messages, like any system can) Why is that, the switching back? Is it for technical reasons? HL7v3 is from semantical point of view much better than the legacy-messaging-systems. So why not use it if the law doesn't force it and the implementation was for most systems ready? Why switch back to these old legacy-systems, often implemented with errors? I don't know for sure. I think, one reason, it is because the new "network" did not come to live, and the organisations had to revalue to their old systems, and those only could run on the legacy-message-standards. --- What we can see is that from market perspective in the Netherlands, HL7v3-messaging is not getting implemented. The old working horses do the job more or less satisfactory. Dutch technicians value the American saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And how about OpenEHR? There are several projects where it is getting implemented, some large companies are involved, some universities too. The main reason? The flexibility it offers to build systems and the ease to connect to messaging standards and non (or defacto) standardized messaging protocols. Bert
