I can only see the abstract for now, but I think the authors seem to
have developed the misconception that end-users would somehow be
designing applications. openEHR doesn't try to do that, and it's the
first time I've heard anyone suggest it. openEHR just enables domain
experts (generally = a small proportion of healthcare professionals, who
might also be some kind of system user in some part of the world) to
more directly define the information content of the system, in such a
way that it can be processed and queried on a semantic level.
The Business Purpose of Archetypes section in the Archetype Technology
Overview
<http://www.openehr.org/releases/AM/latest/docs/Overview/Overview.html#_business_purpose_of_archetypes>may
help to show why this is useful and necessary (it's short!).
There are still many other problems to solve such as clinical workflows
and user interaction / UX.
I am currently at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City working with
the Activity Based Design (ABD) group that has developed a new
architecture that I think has a realistic chance of addressing a)
workflow (e.g. typical nursing tasks like cannulation; more complex
cooperative workflows that involve shared care) and b) some aspects of
UI interaction within workflows. They are just at an early prototype
stage, and it has taken nearly 2 years to get to the current
architecture (naturally taking into account many previous attempts and
experience).
This effort is the first I have seen that has what I think may be the
needed theoretical understanding and technical architecture to starting
to solve clinical process and (some of) UI/UX. And what does it rely on?
Formal clinical models, and it assumes that those models are created by
clinical experts. Not only that, it explicitly assumes a 'template'
concept of the same kind as openEHR's, in order to construct useful data
sets.
It considers these 'templates' as the basis of an 'Activity'
description, which then adds new abilities to blend in some presentation
directives, pre- and post-conditions, some workflow elements,
cost-related items (e.g. ICD coding) and so on. The innovation here is
to consider an Activity a unit of clinical work and to attach these
process-related semantics into that level of artefact.
So let's just reflect on the fact that this research is only now
emerging from one of the leading institutions in the world that has
historically specialised in workflow and decision support.
openEHR as it is today is just a semantic content + querying platform,
and I think we can reasonably say that we have some handle on generating
developer-usable artefacts, i.e. things like TDS, TDO etc, but they are
all content related. These are starting to be standardised now.
The openEHR of today needs to leverage new work such as ABD (or
something like it) to achieve many of the things that the Norwegian
paper talks about. The paper seems to be critiquing a somewhat
unrealistic set of expectations re: openEHR, although I am sure it has
useful lessons.
I'll provide a proper description of ABD ASAP, which I think will
provide our community (particularly those working on clinical workflow,
process etc) new ideas on 'the next layer' for openEHR.
- thomas
On 09/03/2016 23:58, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
Hi everyone!
As some of you may have noticed, a paper called “Evaluating
Model-Driven Development for large-scale EHRs through the openEHR
approach”
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505616300247)
was recently published by a PhD student at the University of Tromsø.
The paper has some pretty direct criticism of the ideal of wide
clinical engagement in widely reusable information models, as well as
the clear division between the clinical and the technical domain
inherent in the openEHR model. I think a lot of the observations
detailed in the paper are probably correct, for its limited scope (one
Norwegian region and 4 years of observation, half of which was done
before the national governance was established). We’ll probably use
the paper as a learning point to improve our national governance
model, and I’d like to hear any international (and domestic Norwegian
for that matter) takes on the implications of the paper.
Kind regards,
*Silje Ljosland Bakke*
**
Information Architect, RN
Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
National ICT Norway
Co-lead, Clinical Models Program
openEHR Foundation
Tel. +47 40203298
Web: http://arketyper.no <http://arketyper.no/>/ Twitter:
@arketyper_no <https://twitter.com/arketyper_no>
_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
--
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
