William, You have produced a lot of archetypes based on clinical input, that in the end were, well considered, well discussed, co-ordinated, agreed, ad-hoc, collections of what clinicians expect in a local context, to see on a screen to look at, and be used for data capture. It is a lot of experiences.
Questions: Have you produced a lot of Template stuff? Or, have you produced semantic interoperability artefacts? Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gfrer at luna.nl On 30 aug. 2013, at 18:42, William Goossen <wgoossen at results4care.nl> wrote: > Semantic interoperability is absolutely compromised when for the same > clinical concept variants of archetypes are created. > If justified for internal system development , the moment exchange with > another system requires harmonizing on datapoint to datapoint level. I have > done about 2000 in perinatology 800 in stroke care 1250 in youth care 100 in > nursing oncology 20 in reuma, 400 in general nursing 250 in diabetes care 200 > in GP care 100 in cardiology. In the past 13 years. > The inconsistencies for the same data element in the various domains are BIG, > without clinical justifiable reasons. > That same situation exists if you have locally / vendor specific arechetypes . > > Vriendelijke groet, > > Dr. William Goossen > > Directeur Results 4 Care BV > +31654614458 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130831/9150ddb4/attachment-0002.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pastedGraphic.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 73662 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130831/9150ddb4/attachment-0001.pdf> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130831/9150ddb4/attachment-0003.html>
