Okay, thinking into the future....far into the future.
We know that the openEHR RM is good...it is very good. But we also know
that it will need changes.
This thought I have has nothing to do with the quality of the model
(hence this is here and not on the technical list) but on the perception
of the model.
More and more we are seeing definitions for acronyms like PHR, EMR and
EHR from organizations, NGOs and government health agencies. It is the
kinds of things that they do best (though with little effectiveness).
There are and will continue to be many clinical applications that are
not EHRs and not really even EMRs by any of these definitions.
My question to you all is:
Would it be wise for us to begin a plan where we replace all EHR
references in the model with something more general such as REC (for
record)?
I am not suggesting a change to the foundation name or any of that.
I am thinking over a cycle of 2 or 3 major versions where we can include
deprecation warnings in software but still maintain the ability to
manage all previous information.
I really haven't studied how big this issue is at this point. Just a
thought crossing my mind.
Okay, thinking into the future…far into the future.
We know that the openEHR RM is good…it is very good. But we also know
that it will need changes.
This thought I have has nothing to do with the quality of the model
(hence this is here and not on the technical list) but on the perception
of the model.
More and more we are seeing definitions for acronyms like PHR, EMR and
EHR from organizations, NGOs and government health agencies. It is the
kinds of things that they do best (though with little effectiveness).
There are and will continue to be many clinical applications that are
not EHRs and not really even EMRs by any of these definitions.
My question to you all is:
Would it be wise for us to begin a plan where we replace all EHR
references in the model with something more general such as REC (for
record)?
Tim,
I think the change will be limited in the EHR classes. Not sure if there will be very different requirement on PHR compared with EHR, if it’s the case we could still add a new package to deal with specific needs from PHR while keeping the EHR package in the RM. So maybe there is no need for renaming at all.
Personally, I think that the definitions of EMR, EHR, PHR etc are not very helpful and tend to get people tied up in knots.
If we get the health computing platform right with openEHR (or something with the same functionality) then we will have a logical EHR which everything else will be able to sit on top of. You will need applications (EMRs) for clinicians to interact with the EHR, and applications (PHR) for you and I to interact with the EHR. Researchers will have applications which will also interact with the same data - it will be just how you slice the cake.
In this world, you won’t need a huge EMR that encompasses all of the functionality that you need, but will be able to plug in best of breed applications for specific tasks because you know that they will just work with the data that is in the EHR. When a better application/component comes along, you will be able to replace an old one with no conversion or loss of data because it sits in the EHR which doesn’t need to change.
More and more we are seeing definitions for acronyms like PHR, EMR and
EHR from organizations, NGOs and government health agencies. It is the
kinds of things that they do best (though with little effectiveness).
...
Would it be wise for us to begin a plan where we replace all EHR
references in the model with something more general such as REC (for
record)?
Isn't the requirements of an EHR often thought of as being a superset
of many of the requirements for PHR, EMR etc. If that view is useful
then EHR is and will remain a good name for the core business of
openEHR.
Many engineers (and ontologists) would say that trying to cover
everything in a model will fail , so let's keep the EHR focus of
openEHR, it's intended focus as described in section 3.2 of http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.1/html/architecture/overview/Output/aims.html
is broad enough already. Possibly too broad, but let's at least give
it a try...
"Relativity theory and quantum mechanics describe different aspects of
the universe (very successfully), but taken together they cannot
explain a duck." (Will Wright)
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful." (George E. P. Box)