Re: AQL support for an array of ehr_id

thanks regards Dileep V S *Founder* HealtheLife Ventures LLP m: +91 9632888113 a: 106, Innovation Centre, IIIT, Electronics City, Bangalore 560100 w: healthelife.in e: dil...@healthelife.in On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Seref Arikan < serefari...@kurumsalteknoloji.com> wrote: > The matches

Re: AQL support for an array of ehr_id

The matches statement is part of Aql specification On Friday, August 31, 2018, Dileep V S wrote: > Dear Ian, > > Thanks. Is this part of the AQL spec or a feature that THinkEhr has > implemented? > > Given the emerging importance of patient consent, given the GDPR and > similar rules coming our

Recommended versioning strategy for Templates

Hi, As an EHR solution evolves, the templates also tend to evolve to an acceptable level, especially since the archetypes themselves are evolving. However, all the data recorded using different versions of the OPT should remain consistently and easily query-able with out the AQL becoming overly

Re: Recommended versioning strategy for Templates

In the EHRServer the implementation of queries allow to express a specific version of an archetype a.b.v1 or all versions a.b.* We don't use filters based on templates yet. Not sure how that is implemented in AQL but maybe there is a matches operation that can match a regex for any archetype

Re: GDPR and OpenEhr.

On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 08:29:33PM +0200, Diego Boscá wrote: > There is in fact that right, the "right to be forgotten" > https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/ > The requirement you say about Germany is backed by sections 3 (b) and (c) > These exceptions do not apply to private providers, so we have

Re: Recommended versioning strategy for Templates

Dileep, the Archetype Identification specification may provide some answers. It undoubtedly needs further development in this area. - thomas On 01/09/2018 15:04, Dileep V S wrote: Hi, As an EHR solution evolves, the

Re: GDPR and OpenEhr.

Hi Bert, There are certainly some implementations that allow for hard-deletes of compositions and Ehrs. This is a complex area as GDPR does not confer an absolute right for medical info to be forgotten (as I understand it). It does allow for copies of the record to be retained for medico-legal

Re: GDPR and OpenEhr.

If a patient uses a private health provider then he has the right of taking all that information and move to another provider. In that case he will want a hard-delete of data. And I hope private health providers are also able to use openEHR ;D I think we should also review the "consent" mechanisms

Re: GDPR and OpenEhr.

On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 07:57:31PM +0200, Diego Boscá wrote: > If a patient uses a private health provider then he has the right of taking > all that information and move to another provider. In that case he will > want a hard-delete of data. Indeed they will want that, but there is no absolute

Re: Recommended versioning strategy for Templates

We have informally started to add major version number to our template names. Our assumption is that major and minor changes to any component, which are not constrained out, should bubble-up to the template. e.g if we switched from blood_pressure.v1 to blood_pressure.v2 that would require a

Re: GDPR and OpenEhr.

There is in fact that right, the "right to be forgotten" https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/ The requirement you say about Germany is backed by sections 3 (b) and (c) These exceptions do not apply to private providers, so we have the legal need to support that kind of delete operations to allow

Re: GDPR and OpenEhr.

I continue to wonder what will happen when a cancer patient (perhaps in a moment of depression or disaffection with care) asks for the hard delete, gets better, then has a recurrence a few years later. What does the health system do when /all the notes are really gone/? I think a better

Re: GDPR and OpenEhr.

And as I said this is covered by the exemptions to hard delete on that law article, no need for German providers to delete nothing their national law doesn't allow for. El sáb., 1 sept. 2018 a las 20:42, Karsten Hilbert () escribió: > On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 08:29:33PM +0200, Diego Boscá wrote:

Re: GDPR and OpenEhr.

On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 08:33:08PM +0200, Diego Boscá wrote: > Supporting hard delete doesn't mean mandate hard delete :) Indeed. I agree with that. Karsten -- GPG 40BE 5B0E C98E 1713 AFA6 5BC0 3BEA AC80 7D4F C89B ___ openEHR-technical mailing

Re: GDPR and OpenEhr.

On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 06:24:22PM +0100, Ian McNicoll wrote: > There are certainly some implementations that allow for hard-deletes of > compositions and Ehrs. This is a complex area as GDPR does not confer an > absolute right for medical info to be forgotten (as I understand it). It > does

Re: Recommended versioning strategy for Templates

In the EHRServer we use that approach, template ids have a version number and language: https://github.com/ppazos/cabolabs-ehrserver/wiki/Template-Management-(from-EHRServer-v1.3) But that is not related to querying. On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 2:21 PM Ian McNicoll wrote: > We have informally

GDPR and OpenEhr.

OpenEhr does not really allow to delete data, only logical deletion (mark as deleted), but GDPR demands the right of the patient to be forgotten. Is there some change expected in the specs for compliance to GDPR, or was this already implemented? We had this discussion, slightly different,

Re: AQL on specific list of compositions

Thomas, sorry for the late reply. > Out of interest, is there a diagram or other GNUmed documentation / > explanation of all this. It's pretty close to what I think openEHR is or > should be doing; you have formalised more of this than we have so far, so > it's good to have some reference points

Re: GDPR and OpenEhr.

Permanent annonimisation is allowed under some prerequisites (see the other reply, point 3 of art 17). This is a patient right to be exercised with all consequences. Data will never be lost as the patient has the right of obtaining a copy of all the information a provider has about him in an

Re: GDPR and OpenEhr.

There are good arguments in the discussion. I take this message to reply to because it is the last for this subject at the moment. I am thinking of following situation. This week, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and IBM agreed that there must be a health data platform which exposes itself in FHIR

Holistic view, was :AQL on specific list of compositions

Contsys will update some definitions. They are now the base of their thinking, but I am sure that will change soon. Thanks, Gérard, for giving me the opportunity to make my point again. :-) We don't call war a peace problem. So why do we call illness a health problem? Normally I would not