lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-08 Thread Heather Leslie
Sent: Friday, 5 October 2012 8:14 PM To: For openEHR technical discussions Cc: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x See below. On 4 Oct 2012, at 18:07, Thomas Beale wrote: On 03/10/2012 23:26, Gerard

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-08 Thread Thomas Beale
On 05/10/2012 11:13, Gerard Freriks wrote: > See below. > > On 4 Oct 2012, at 18:07, Thomas Beale wrote: > >> On 03/10/2012 23:26, Gerard Freriks wrote: I just care about getting one model >>> >>> In the case of 13606_one good model_that describes a generic >>> interface for EHR communic

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-07 Thread Koray Atalag
er 2012 5:38 a.m. To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x Gentlemen Current situation, where CEN 13606 deals on en hadn with communication only, but pays no attention to the EHR data storage, retrieval and OpenEHR concept on

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-07 Thread Erik Sundvall
Hi! On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:15 AM, David Moner wrote: > 2012/9/13 Erik Sundvall > >> It would be great if e.g most of the future ISO 13606 version could be a >> true subset of openEHR instead of the current confusing situation. > > > This is something I discussed with Thomas some time ago, i

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-07 Thread Linhardt Peter
Subject: Re: lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x Dear Koray, We both agree that the scopes of CEN/ISO 13606 and openEHR differ, as I wrote. The scope of 13606 is about EHR communication. That of openEHR is about the implementation in an EHR system. At present a standard

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-05 Thread Gerard Freriks
See below. On 4 Oct 2012, at 18:07, Thomas Beale wrote: > On 03/10/2012 23:26, Gerard Freriks wrote: >>> I just care about getting one model >> >> In the case of 13606 one good model that describes a generic interface for >> EHR communication, also, for communication with other proprietary

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-04 Thread Thomas Beale
On 03/10/2012 23:26, Gerard Freriks wrote: >> I just care about getting one model > > In the case of 13606 _one good model _that describes a generic > interface for EHR communication, also, for communication with other > proprietary EHR solutions. > In the case of openEHR _one good model_ th

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-04 Thread pablo pazos
lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x On 03/10/2012 23:02, Thomas Beale wrote: although - it will probably come out to have multiple entry points. The 13606 model is about what makes sense in EHR Extract messages. We built and

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-04 Thread Gerard Freriks
Dear Koray, We both agree that the scopes of CEN/ISO 13606 and openEHR differ, as I wrote. The scope of 13606 is about EHR communication. That of openEHR is about the implementation in an EHR system. At present a standard is missing about defining clinical content. It would be nice, certainly, wh

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-04 Thread Gerard Freriks
> I just care about getting one model In the case of 13606 one good model that describes a generic interface for EHR communication, also, for communication with other proprietary EHR solutions. In the case of openEHR one good model that describes one particular implementation of an EHR-syst

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-04 Thread Koray Atalag
openehr.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Freriks Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2012 11:26 a.m. To: For openEHR clinical discussions Cc: Openehr-Technical Subject: Re: lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x I just care about getting one model In the case of 13606 one good model t

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-03 Thread Thomas Beale
On 03/10/2012 23:02, Thomas Beale wrote: > On 13/09/2012 10:15, David Moner wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 2012/9/13 Erik Sundvall > > >> >> It would be great if e.g most of the future ISO 13606 version >> could be a true subset of openEHR instead of the current >>

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-03 Thread Thomas Beale
On 13/09/2012 10:15, David Moner wrote: > Hi, > > 2012/9/13 Erik Sundvall > > > It would be great if e.g most of the future ISO 13606 version > could be a true subset of openEHR instead of the current confusing > situation. > > > This is something I dis

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-10-03 Thread pablo pazos
lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x On 03/10/2012 23:02, Thomas Beale wrote: On 13/09/2012 10:15, David Moner wrote: Hi, 2012/9/13 Erik Sundvall It would

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-09-15 Thread Thomas Beale
On 13/09/2012 05:15, David Moner wrote: > Hi, > > 2012/9/13 Erik Sundvall > > > It would be great if e.g most of the future ISO 13606 version > could be a true subset of openEHR instead of the current confusing > situation. > > > This is something I dis

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-09-14 Thread Thomas Beale
On 13/09/2012 03:48, Erik Sundvall wrote: > Hi! > > On 12/09/2012 17:43, Heath Frankel wrote: > > We need a depreciation scheme that allows us to say that something > > is no longer recommended for use in a particular release and removed > > in a subsequent release. This gives implementations time

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-09-13 Thread David Moner
Hi, 2012/9/13 Erik Sundvall > It would be great if e.g most of the future ISO 13606 version could be a > true subset of openEHR instead of the current confusing situation. This is something I discussed with Thomas some time ago, it would be one of the best harmonisation solutions, but probably

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-09-13 Thread Erik Sundvall
Hi! On 12/09/2012 17:43, Heath Frankel wrote: > We need a depreciation scheme that allows us to say that something > is no longer recommended for use in a particular release and removed > in a subsequent release. This gives implementations time to migrate to > the new recommendation. It also means

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-09-12 Thread Thomas Beale
On 12/09/2012 17:43, Heath Frankel wrote: > > > We need a depreciation scheme that allows us to say that something is > no longer recommended for use in a particular release and removed in a > subsequent release. This gives implementations time to migrate to the > new recommendation. It also mea

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-09-07 Thread Sam Heard
Hi Tom I absolutely agree with your summary. Technically I think making use of obsolescence is the appropriate way to go in software. No competent vendor will put out an operating system, compiler or software that breaks existing tools without doing the work for them. The point I am making is

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-09-06 Thread Thomas Beale
On 06/09/2012 15:44, Sam Heard wrote: > Hi Tom > > I absolutely agree with your summary. Technically I think making use > of obsolescence is the appropriate way to go in software. No competent > vendor will put out an operating system, compiler or software that > breaks existing tools without do

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-09-06 Thread Erik Sundvall
Hi! On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Sam Heard wrote: > I will be pushing the backward compatibility angle very hard indeed - this > can be a pain for those who want to progress. Don't push too hard on "backward compatibility" without a clear definition of what you mean by it and what you want t

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-09-06 Thread Thomas Beale
Personally I think the best way to look at this is as follows: * specifications will evolve, and they may include breaking changes. As a community we should stick to the usual rules (semver.org) whereby we identify releases containing breaking changes with a new major version * al

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-09-04 Thread pablo pazos
; From: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com > To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-clinical at > lists.openehr.org > Subject: lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x > > > for those interested, I have been spending this month with Dr

lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x

2012-09-04 Thread Thomas Beale
for those interested, I have been spending this month with Dr Stan Huff's group at Intermountain Health in Salt lake City. I have at least a dozen potential change requests / issues for openEHR. Mostly small, but important in their way. That has come from the evidence of their systems, and our