Thomas Beale : >Philippe, I would suggest that here you should use the term EMR or EPR - >i.e. institution-based health records. The current conception of the "EHR" >in ISO, in CEN, and in openEHR is definitely patient-centred, not >institution-centred. The EHR draws from EPRs, EMRs etc - like the in-car >camera seeing the inside of the garage during each pit-stop (this is a >very good analogy by the way)
Well, I agree with you that what you call EHR should "follow" the patient during the whole "medical journey". If continuity of care is a priority (I think it is), you have to choose between a "hard" approach through servers dedicated to this task (Ligne de vie), and the "fuzzy" approach through peer to peer messages (CEN prENV13606, HL7). To give a very matter of fact example of messages "fuzzyness" : in France, it is usual for a patient to see Dr X and Dr Y to get 2 advices ; none of them know you also see the other. If Dr X asks for an endoscopy and Dr Y for a scanner, you will have lots of messages exchanged through 2 networks, but no continuity of care at all. Philippe AMELINE Odyssee project http://www.nautilus-info.com
