On 07/04/2013 00:35, Bert Verhees wrote:
>> That's expedient, but it's also a guarantee of non-interoperability.
> As far as I can see, also from my experience, nor OpenEHR, nor MLHIM will be
> the only datamodel system on the world. Cooperation with other systems will
> always need a message-format. The same goes for other systems. Mapping will
> always be (at least partly) done manually.
>
> The goal, what the customer wants, is not a solution, which dictates him to
> throw away his system, but he wants connectivity in which his system can
> participate.
>
Hi Bert,
that's obviously one thing customers want - data interoperability. But -
what do they want to do with the data? Let's say that want to have a
managed medication list, or run a query that identifies patients at risk
of hypertension, or the nursing software wants to graph the heart rate.
Then they need more - just being able to get the data isn't enough. You
have to be able to compute with it. That means standardising the meaning
somehow.
Now, each healthcare provider / vendor / solution producer could just
define their own 'content models'. Like they do today. Or we could try
and standardise on some of them.
The openEHR way seems to me the one that can work: because it
standardises on the archetypes, which are a library of data points and
data groups, it means that anyone can write their own data set
specification (template) based on that. So you define what blood
pressure looks like once (in the archetype) and it gets used in 1000
places, in different ways. But - it's guaranteed to be queryable by
queries based on the archetype.
That's the essence of the system - 3 modelling layers:
* reference model - agree on the data
* archetypes - agree on the clinical data points and data groups -
this only needs to be done more or less once; queries are based on
these models
* templates - define localised / specific data sets using the archetypes
We're working on major improvements on the details in ADL 1.5, but I
have to admit I don't think of trying to change the ground rules. These
three logical levels are the minimum for data interoperability, content
standardisation, and local freedom. With specialisation and association
between models in the archetype and template layers, that's a lot of
freedom to customise.
Is there a better meta-architecture available?
- thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130407/f856ec86/attachment.html>
