as answer: William
TB: The ultimate point is that there absolutely must be a single set of
models for clinical concepts.
WG: I agree!
Secondly, that it must be possible to express these concepts clearly, and re-usably.
WG: I agree!
TB: Thirdly, that such expressions can be automatically translated for use in any particular deployment technology or circumstance.
WG: I agree!
TB:
Having parallel libraries of such concept definitions (and this will probably be made worse with HL7v3 templates) is not going to be a useful step for healthcare.
- thomas
WG: Here I disagree, currently concept definitions are findable on zillion places. Reducing this to the copyright holder of an instrument, three to five terminologies (LOINC, SNOMED etc.) and two or three standards organisations (HL7 v3 / OpenEHR-13606) and a few national project that deploy them is already a huge achievement in reducing the number of places where to find this.
I see the zorginformatiemodel.nl website as an intermediary to get things going. Yes we definitely need a registry, which should not be the standards organisations themselves I believe.
William Goossen
Williamtfgoossen@cs.com wrote:
TB: Having parallel libraries of such concept definitions (and this will probably be made worse with HL7v3 templates) is not going to be a useful step for healthcare.
WG: Here I disagree, currently concept definitions are findable on zillion places.
we are at cross-purposes again; when I said "concept definitions", I meant clinical models in the narrow sense, not "concept definitions" in the broader terminology/ontology sense. There are no other places to look for structured constraint models of clinical concepts than archetypes or RMIMs, or other variants of the same thing. All other definitions of clinical concepts to date are found in what I would call 'ontologies of reality', meaning models of the real world; archetypes etc form part of the 'ontology of information', of which a reference model is another part.
Reducing this to the copyright holder of an instrument, three to five terminologies (LOINC, SNOMED etc.) and two or three standards organisations (HL7 v3 / OpenEHR-13606) and a few national project that deploy them is already a huge achievement in reducing the number of places where to find this.
we still have an incompatible world, with clinical models being done in two ways, one designed for the task, one not.
I see the zorginformatiemodel.nl website as an intermediary to get things going. Yes we definitely need a registry, which should not be the standards organisations themselves I believe.
If it is an intermediary, what do you see as the destination?
- thomas