+1 but for the focus of this conversation I think we are trying to solve (find a relatively good enough solution) the clinical side and use detailed terminologies for that.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Mikael Nyström <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pablo, > > > > Yes, of cause it is! My main point was that a statistical classification > is a simpler product than a clinical ontology and it is therefore also > easier to implement a statistical classification than a clinical ontology. > But if your use case require a clinical ontology instead of a statistical > classification, you need to accept that it is more difficult to implement a > clinical ontology than a statistical classification. > > > > Regards > > Mikael > > > > > > *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical- > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Pablo Pazos > *Sent:* den 14 mars 2018 23:58 > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists. > openehr.org> > *Subject:* RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again > > > > But ICD is a statistical not a clinical tool. > > > > On Mar 14, 2018 7:10 PM, "Mikael Nyström" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Of cause it is possible to create something that is easier to use. ICD-10 > is a good example of something that have similarities with SNOMED CT and is > both (for some use cases) easier to implement and more widespread. But I if > you want something that is based on logic, because you want to use logic > functions when you use the system, it comes with the complexity of logic. > And it is not that complex to implement SNOMED CT. The problem is probably > that we have fewer trained people in health informatics (including in for > example SNOMED CT and openEHR) that in other informatics areas. > > > > Regards > > Mikael > > > > > > *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical- > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Philippe Ameline > *Sent:* den 13 mars 2018 13:32 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again > > > > Le 13/03/2018 à 12:32, GEORGE, John (NHS DIGITAL) a écrit : > > > > I am get the impression that SNOMED CT is hard to implement, and therefore > wondered if we are at some kind of tipping point, like where HL7v3 was a > few years ago, and some bright spark came along, and now we have FHIR that > is gaining great traction in the health community due to the ease at which > it can be implemented. > > > Hi John, > > The tipping point will only get reached when a sufficient amount of Snomed > users will state that it is uselessly hard to implement... and when someone > will invent a smart way to simplify it... not there yet ;-) > > But I really insist on the two orthogonal issues at stake: > 1) a component should ease your job and not kill your project (detect > "dead horses" early), > 2) a component should not keep you stuck in the wrong (ancient) reference > frame. > > No need to say that FHIR is easier to put at work than the plain RIM, but > it still keeps its community in a system where "boxes that saw the patient > passing by can exchange information" when we should (due to both the > chronic turn and the information society era) be dedicated to organize > multidisciplinary teamwork around patients. > > Best, > > Philippe > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- > technical_lists.openehr.org > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- > technical_lists.openehr.org > -- Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez [email protected] +598 99 043 145 skype: cabolabs <http://cabolabs.com/> http://www.cabolabs.com https://cloudehrserver.com Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj>
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
