On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 Thomas Beale wrote:
> I tried to post the following about a week ago, but it was rejected. It
> may work now...
>
> I have just joined this list, and it seems that a few pieces of
> information might be
> of use, going by the discussion I see. Apologies for repeating something
> someone else
> has said, but I haven't the time to read the whole archives..
Reading your description of GEHR, only one question comes to mind -- how is it as an
interchange format? So far, HL7 has proved the most versatile and easily workable
interchange format, but I would love to equip freemed with a GEHR interchange
component if it proves easy enough.
I may have missed the point, but all of the open source medical projects _don't_ need
to have the same core -- in fact, that would probably kill the whole point of the
thing. The only thing that any of us should be concerned with is the flow of data in
and out of each of our respective data structures, using common interchange formats. I
know that HL7, CorbaMED PIDS and GEHR have many common components in terms of patient
records -- why not exploit those similarities to allow all of the projects to pretty
much seamlessly move data between platforms?
Just my two bits.
jeff
> Alvin Marcelo wrote:
>
> > Again, dear researchers, you have to reach out to the practitioners in
> the
> > list because they are the ones who will give life to your models.
>
> For the record, the current GEHR efforts underway (in Australia - see
> gehr.org; in the
> UK, see the Synex project, a CEN/GEHRish system on chime.ucl.ac.uk) both
> have a number
> of clinicians. Our Ocean kernel work in Australia involves 3 GPs
> currently, all of
> whom are practising and all of whom are very IT-literate as well.
>
> > The list is looking for a model for an OpenEMR kernel.
> >
> > There are now five models on the block: GEHR, HL7 3, VistA, CEN, and
> > CORBAmed.
>
> Modern GEHR and CEN are not so far apart. We believe the latest GEHR
> model deals with
> a few things that CEN does not yet. I am going to develop a rough
> equivalence table at
> some stage. The GEHR model aims to be implementable, whereas, although
> the CEN one
> could be, it does not really help implementors too much. It also has a
> couple of
> things which we do not, which we may want to put in at some later stage,
> but we are
> going to conduct clinical software trials first, and test the waters.
>
> > We won't go into which is better or which is worse (and why). If there
> was
> > a definite answer to this, then there would be only one model (the
> best).
> > But now there are five which means there is no consensus as of yet.
>
> Yes, and it means that there have not been (nearly) enough prototypes
> and clinical
> usage trials.
>
> > Knowing this, I ask again:
> >
> > Will the proponents of each of the models please...
> >
> > show us the bridge that links their models to an actual EMR
> > implementation, ie, how do we use your model to build a simple primary
>
> > care record system...
>
> The GEHR model, as published on www.gehr.org (architecture doc) is shown
> in BON
> (Business Object Notation; we will convert it to UML when we get a spare
> 5 mins!);
> this is a direct graphical representation of Eiffel. In other words,
> each class,
> relationship is found in an Eiffel class somewhere. If you look at the
> classes in the
> textual Eiffel IDE (we use the ISE tools) then you will see more
> details. If you were
> to look at the Ocean kernel implementation classes, which inherit
> directly from the
> GEHR classes (names are prefixed with "G1_"), they finish the job by
> adding code. This
> is normal seamless object-oriented development. It is nicest with
> Eiffel, but is
> certainly possible with C++, Java and so on.
>
> > ....in SQL speak, how do we build standard SQL tables from your model?
>
> Are you trying to implement an in-house solution? A better way to go,
> based on the
> fact that it is a comprehensive OO model is to use an object database,
> which is
> responsive to OQL (object SQL). Many clinicians have come to this
> conclusion, due to
> the difficulties they have had trying to squash the relatively complex
> object
> structures into a relational DB.
>
> Another way to do it is to wait for the Ocean GEHR kernel, which will be
> available as
> open source, and will move to an open source mode of development
> soon(ish). Around the
> middle of this year. It will provide a full kernel component, with COM
> and Corba
> interfaces (including to accept SQL like queries).
>
> Actually, you can implement a decent OO model over an RDBMS, but you
> can't use 3rd
> normal form tables, you hhave to use ann object/relational schema.
> Fujitsu/CA's ODB-II
> does this.
>
> > Note researchers: the question is not "why your model is better
> > than another". It's how to migrate from your model to the
> implementation.
>
> Just to re-iterate: this is just standard software engineering. It gets
> done all the
> time.
>
> regards,
>
> - thomas beale
>
>
>
>
>
*************************
jeff b
system administrator
university communications
university of connecticut
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
