Hi,
My more recent impressions from inside the SNOMED CT community are not entirely
in line with Tom's impression below.
The people that believe that SNOMED CT is on its own are nowadays quite few. My
impression is that most people understand that SNOMED CT needs to be
implemented using powerful information models (or data structures) to achieve
all its benefits. However, the problem is that there are so many information
models for health records around and some of them are (more or less)
standardized and some of them are ad hoc and some of them are proprietary so
there is difficult to interact and engage with all of them.
IHTSDO's primary focus is their member countries (and potential member
countries) and IHTSDO therefore focus on solving the terminology and ontology
needs in these countries. In these member countries are SNOMED CT a large part
of the terminology and ontology solution for the health care system. IHTSDO
therefore focus on SNOMED CT and collaborations with other terminologies and
classifications that are well used in the member countries, like ICD and LOINC.
However, it is understandable that for people in non-member countries it seems
like IHTSDO assumes that the whole world uses SNOMED CT.
Regards
Mikael
Thomas Beale wrote:
Indeed. Ideally we would work more closely with IHTSDO on this (I spent 4 y on
standing committees there), but I think there is not yet the interest in this.
There are still people who believe that a) SNOMED CT on its own, with only
trivial data structures is all that is needed (that's a categorical error of
thinking) and/or b) that the whole world uses SNOMED CT and that therefore the
only terminology approach is SNOMED CT (an error today, and I suspect for years
to come).
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
