There is some work going on t odo mappings between openEHR and C-CDA as part of the EU SemanticHealthNet project but I suspect C-CDA has little future, to be rapidly replaced by FHIR,
I think this recent tweet is relevant - The #argonaut project, CCDA on #FHIR at #HL7WGM pic.twitter.com/NoRgffPHHk also http://www.slideshare.net/Furore_com/01-b-from-ccda-to-fhir-grahame Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414 994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK Director openEHR Foundation www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care www.phcsg.org On 20 January 2015 at 03:05, pablo pazos <pazospablo at hotmail.com> wrote: > Great input, thanks! > > -- > Kind regards, > Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez > http://cabolabs.com > > ________________________________ > Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:42:54 +0800 > From: edwin_uestc at 163.com > To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org > Subject: Re:C-CDA was created because they do not know openEHR? :) > > > Dear sir, > let me share a litttle thought of mine about this CCDA thing > dating back to 2000, CDA is created and used in some places in USA and > in 2005 it is evoved to Release 2, in that time ,there is not only one CDA > for the clinical document representation in USA,for some continuity of care > and specially for patient transfer between different facilities there is a > standard named CCR, after some kinds of fighting,they all agreed to use CDA > as the basic format or model to solve the continuity of care problem ,which > became the most widely used across the whole world CCD(Continuity of Care > Document) in 2007,in this CCD they defined different kinds of templates for > vital signs and chief complaint and so on.after then IHE,HITSP and HL7 they > create a bunch of other IG for different use cases, for example public > health section .these all existing IGs contain a number of templates(section > level and entry level ) inherit the constraints defined in the original CCD > standards and inconsistency between these templates bring them a new level > interoperability problem.in order to solve this mess they came to the idea > to create a unified template library based on these efforts these SDO and > agency have done. > at last I want to say maybe CDA is not that widely used across the > world,openEHR is definitely less. > kind regards > > > > -- > ??? > 15901958021 > > > At 2015-01-20 10:19:24, "pablo pazos" <pazospablo at hotmail.com> wrote: > > Just for the sake of discussion, > > See slides 22 and 23: > http://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/c-cda_and_meaningfulusecertification.pdf > > "As disparate SDOs (HL7, IHE, HITSP, etc.) developed CDA IGs, multiple > approaches for documenting template requirements began to diverge > threatening interoperability?" > > IG = Implementation Guide > > So my wild guess is they created a new artifact with the same problems the > current artifacts have, like the need for an IG, instead of doing a little > research and find a better solution like using archetypes to model and > "consolidate" CDA templates. > > Does anyone know more about CCDA? Do you think this is a good area of work > for openEHR in the US? I mean, maybe we (as a community) can propose an > openEHR-based solution or make some kind of statement, for documental > consolidation than having another implementation guide + CDA templates. > > What do you think? > > -- > Kind regards, > Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez > http://cabolabs.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing > list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
