# MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials **Category:** [Clinical (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/clinical-archive/153) **Created:** 2014-07-29 04:52 UTC **Views:** 29 **Replies:** 66 **URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/medinfo-2015-openehr-tutorials/15127 --- ## Post #1 by @pablo Hi all! Since next MedInfo is in Brazil (near Uruguay) I'll be attending for sure. I also might present a paper or two and want to propose an openEHR related tutorial. Is other people planning to present openEHR papers or tutorials? It would be great if we can coordinate tutorials (and topics) together so we can have our "openEHR day" at MedInfo. What do you think? We have 1 year to plan this, and that's not a lot of time! I hope we can join forces and do something nice for the south american openEHR community. We are eager to learn from others that already have openEHR working in the real world, and learn from their success and failures. --- ## Post #2 by @system Hi Pablo Great to hear from you and your plans for Medinfo 2015. I plan to come for the meeting and I am sure a lot of others do too. A group of openEHR implementers will be meeting in Istanbul before MIE on the Saturday afternoon (venue to be decided). I would hope that there will be sufficient momentum in Brazil to have a high profile openEHR stream at Medinfo and take a key role in the conference. Cheers, Sam --- ## Post #3 by @system Hi Pablo and all, We had developers' workshop at Medinfo2007, 2010 and 2013, and I organized developers' workshop 2010, and 2013. I think the combination of clinical workshop/tutorial half day and developers' workshop half day would be better. I have to write up until the tutorial/workshop dead line, 15 Jan, 2015. Shinji KOBAYASHI --- ## Post #4 by @system Hi Pablo! I will attending to Medinfo 2015 and will present an OpenEHR related paper. Will be glad to contribute... Regards, Luis --- ## Post #5 by @pablo Hi Shinji! By chance, do you have the agendas of the previous openEHR developer's workshops? It would be nice to see what has been done, do a little bit of introduction workshops for beginners and do some new cool stuff for skilled openEHR devs. BTW, maybe a good place to coordinate and share info about ideas would be the openEHR wiki. Thanks! --- ## Post #6 by @heather.leslie Hi Pablo, We have kept info on Conferences in the wiki: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/Conferences See Medinfo 2013: [http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2013+-+Copenhagen,+Denmark](http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2013+-+Copenhagen,+Denmark). 2 half day sessions were held then – one clinical modelling focussed and the other technical Regards Heather --- ## Post #7 by @pablo Thanks for the info Heather! I think we should do something similar to the previous workshops for devs, something simple to get newcomers to understand how to work with archetypes in software (parsing, processing, validating data, extracting paths, etc), and more specific topics for skilled openEHR devs (persistence options, REST APIs, querying, reporting, UI generation, ...). I would love to see a hands-on tutorial in which we can program live and help newcomers to pass the first barrier in openEHR software development: lose the fear of archetypes. Also I would like to know how we want to present this, should we submit the proposals individualy and then organize or should we coordinate and make one proposal with all the workshops/tutorials? Thanks! --- ## Post #8 by @system Hi Pablo I wonder if Jusara could organise a submeeting in an academic/industry forum prior to MedInfo? Cheers Sam --- ## Post #9 by @ian.mcnicoll Hi Pablo, This is exactly the type of environment we are trying to setup with HANDI\-HOPD \- see handi\-hopd\.org\. Although the first outing will be somewhat UK focussed, we are trying to work to an architecture that will allow the environment to be cloned and re\-packaged for other countries/regions \+ use cloud\-based Docker/openShift type hosting\. Ian --- ## Post #10 by @pablo Of course! I should have think of Jussara before. I'll talk with her and her fellow openEHR.br colleagues to see if we can get this organized. BTW, just to start the coordination I would like to do a workshop focused on openEHR data store and query. And if there's interest, another one focused on UI: generation, manipulation, processing, models, etc. (we're presenting a paper on this topic at the InfoLac congress, this year is in Uruguay! lucky me: [http://infolac2014.org/index.php/en/](http://infolac2014.org/index.php/en/)) --- ## Post #11 by @system Dear colleagues, I updated Wiki description about MEDINFO 2015 and made the developers' workshop 2015 page\. http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015 Could you all please take a look and add comments or describe your plan? Shinji KOBAYASHI --- ## Post #12 by @pablo Hi! I was about to send a message to the lists to coordinate the tutorials topics to minimize overlap. Thanks for creating the page Shinji! That will help a lot for doing that coordination. I'll add a list of topics and anyone can mark his/her preference for giving a tutorial about it, so we can detect collisions. For the spanish speakers, the MedInfo organization wants to have some tutorials in spanish to encourage the LatAm community to participate in the conference. Also until december they have a preferential price for LatAm colleagues (still pricey but it's MedInfo :). Cheers, Pablo. --- ## Post #13 by @system Hi Pablo, and all Thank you for cooperation\. I am working on the developers' workshop proposal based on the last proposal to MEDINFO2013\. Please modify and add your description for your project\. The Spanish tutorial sounds muy bien\. Shinji --- ## Post #14 by @Sam Hi All It would be good to coordinate this and try and get a full range of options available - clinical and technical. Clearly there are a few people who have already done work in South America who might want to coordinate. I would hope that we may be able to get a key note if we are able to promote this idea. Perhaps a group of speakers on what they are doing with openEHR under the Foundation banner. I am very interested to know who will be attending and would like to present on any openEHR activity. I am happy to coordinate and make this list available to anyone interested. [sam.heard@openehrfoundation.org](mailto:sam.heard@openehrfoundation.org) Cheers, Sam --- ## Post #15 by @system I will be present. Cheers --- ## Post #16 by @pablo Hi Sam, I think we are coordinating this already :) IMO that's the point of having the wiki pages and asking colleagues to add content, proposals and comments. I think the idea of a key note is great, and I want to collaborate in any way I can, but... as you an others may know, I asked several times for endorsement and support (not talking about money) from the foundation on the training side, to standardize the contents, to have a formal way of certification, and spread the standard, but the board went silent. I'm very pragmatic and I don't know why this is so difficult, for me this is treated in a very political way and should be something technical. With that being said, for me, talking about training under the foundation banner is at least weird. Maybe this is not a good place or time to mention this, but is how I honestly feel about the proposal. I long to see the work I try to do to create awareness about the standard to be supported by the foundation. To be honest, the only support I got is from the Chilean Association of Healthcare Informatics (ACHISA) with whom I'm very thankful because without them I wouldn't be able to create the first online course 100% about openEHR in spanish and provide it to more than 140 people from 15 countries. --- ## Post #17 by @Stefan_Sauermann Dear Pablo\! Within IHE wee seem to have a similar situation, "educators" working along providing training, trying to expain to the "institutional layer", asking the institution to take formal measures, so that training and probably even exams and certification are harmonised across subgroups and regions\. Over the years something has sunk in, and we may see an IHE "Education" group sometime soon\. This however took some years until both educators and "institutional layers" knew why and how they might benefit from each other\. In that way I can understand your experience So: There seems to be independent multi\-site evidence that "education" is a "political" issue\. This may help or not, let us all keep the spirit high\! Greetings from Vienna, Stefan Stefan Sauermann Program Director Biomedical Engineering Sciences \(Master\) University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien Hoechstaedtplatz 5, 1200 Vienna, Austria P: \+43 1 333 40 77 \- 988 M: \+43 664 6192555 E: stefan\.sauermann@technikum\-wien\.at I: www\.technikum\-wien\.at/mbe I: www\.technikum\-wien\.at/ibmt I: www\.healthy\-interoperability\.at --- ## Post #18 by @pablo Thanks for your message Stefan. I understand the organizational time does not accompanies the time of the community needs. For me is very odd that in one hand the Foundation wants to spread the standard but in the other do not endorse anyone on the training side. Educators & trainers want to spread the standard also, and sometimes just saying "the foundation supports us" and have a web page with our name as "endorsed trainers" allows us to access places that we can't access alone, like government working groups. And training people in government is a great way of having the standard included in call for proposals for projects, and that leads to the industry to catch up. Then the industry will need people to work in delivering tools that implements the standard, and that people needs training, and so on. **We can create this virtuous circle but we need help.** For me, training is the best way of spreading the standard and for the openEHR-ES community that seem to work for the last 4 years that I'm giving the course in spanish. And others follow, like the openEHR-BR community, some of them were my students now they have their own openEHR course in portuguese (awesome!). I'm not sure what's the formal way of putting these issues under the consideration of the board(s) and get any feedback from them. --- ## Post #19 by @system OpenEHR is not a standard, it is a formal specification\. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards.htm ISO, What is a standard: "A standard is a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose\." --- ## Post #20 by @pablo Bert, I'm aware of the definition and I use terms in a very specific way, I said standard because that definition fits what openEHR is. Anyway, we are not discussing definitions but a much broader subject: the board being silent in front on community efforts that need them. Pablo Pazos [www.CaboLabs.com](http://www.CaboLabs.com) --- ## Post #21 by @Dr_Carola_Hullin_Luc Dear All, Please take this observation as a help DISCUSSION rather a critic: but the standards difinition is not an awareness issues, instead is a GAP between contexts. In Latino America and Caribe, there is minimal understanding of what a standard is....as displayed on Pablo´s answer, so the real use of openEHR never is achieved because of this gap. I was last week in INFOLAC2014 ,where the goverment of Uruguay and several local authorities discussed about standards but the issue was a different one. So, I believe that OpenEHR as foundation and its initial team of founders of this conceptual and technical framework should lead the training contents and validity that developing countries are using. I was surprise that Uruguay invested 4 million dollars and the concept of openEHR was missing: lost of investment again. [http://www.agesic.gub.uy/innovaportal/file/1443/1/agesic_agendadigital_2011_2015.pdf](http://www.agesic.gub.uy/innovaportal/file/1443/1/agesic_agendadigital_2011_2015.pdf) Hope this contextual information help to get a good quality training package from the foundation so then it can be shared around the world. Cheers Carol (LATAM) --- ## Post #22 by @system > Bert, I'm aware of the definition and I use terms in a very specific way, I said standard because that definition fits what openEHR is. I don't think so. And I think there can be reasons why OpenEhr does not try to becomes a standard. > > Anyway, we are not discussing definitions but a much broader subject: the board being silent in front on community efforts that need them. You are right, you just used the word standard a few times, and that is not what it is. That is one reason why I said it, not for discussion. I agree that there could be done more and could have been done more. It (the board) could try to apply for standardization, could work for it, towards it, It could put more effort in education, it could better document artifacts which are widely used. I think it is possible that things have to do with each other. That is why I responded to the word standard. The board doesn't do these things. It wonders you. In your message, you indicate that possible they are not aware of what you complain about. You'll find the names of the members of the board on the website, I think. You can email them and ask. I hope you tell us what they tell you. Maybe it is just money. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Good luck Bert Verhees. --- ## Post #23 by @system In Europe, politicians are afraid to make errors, they are not able to judge if a specification has a high quality. So they go for standards. This is in many countries like this. That is why HL7 always try to standardize their efforts, and the higher the better. In Europe you go first to your national body, then to the European body, then to ISO. Alternatives with a little bit less status are Oasis, W3, OMG, and also from there you can go to ISO. I have never heard that OpenEhr tried to become a standard. In these ten years, they never did, or they did it in silence, or I just missed it, was on holiday when the announcement was done. But if I am right, then is that a reason why it will never become important on government-level in the Netherlands. And in many other countries this is the same. No politician in the Netherlands wil ever invest millions in a specification which did not made it to ISO. That is why the Netherlands invested 500 millions Euro in a HL7v3 standard. Because it is an ISO standard, or it was in the traject to become one. Really, 500 millions Euro, half a billion Euro. Just for a message system for the Netherlands, based on HL7v3. And the laugh, it failed. But that doesn't matter, the politicians are safe, they favored ISO standards. The companies are safe, they got their money, got well paid, and did what they were asked for. No one ever got fired for choosing an ISO standard. Why did it fail? Ten years they had spent 50 million Euro, every year. It is a long story, but I can summarize it in a few words. I think they did not want to succeed. They failed for political reasons, they did not want to do concessions with the majority in parliament. So the parliament blew it off. They had chosen to fail. It would be good for the OpenEhr developing companies if a OpenEhr did more to be acceptable for governments. Bert --- ## Post #24 by @system Hi, What I should offense to is health threating entities/events\. I believe we have wisdom enough to fight against them\. And then, it would be more constructive that we think about what we can do for healthcare and our community rather than what our community do for us\. Having workshop and tutorials would be good contribution and make something happen to outreach\. To Pablo and Latin Americans, I always respect your contributions and am much interested in your woks\. I am looking forward to meeting you and sharing passion with us\. To Bert, Thank you for proof\-reading\. English is too difficult for me, Japanese\. My understanding is openEHR specs are oriented to base of the standards\. Could you let me know the better phrase? Regards, Shinji KOBAYASHI --- ## Post #25 by @pablo Hi Bert, that is my idea. In fact I'm putting together a small document with bullet points of what we discussed about the training space since 2012, and try to ask if the board should or can be involved in this, why is not already involved, if there are any plans to do it and of course if I can be of help. I don't think the problem is money (but maybe I'm also afraid to ask), but IMO is more action fron the board to give us a little push with support (also no talking about money). I'm also afraid to ask if the lack of endorsement and support is something political, maybe with me working at the MoH, WHO etc. and saying the same things might hace a different effect. I really don't know and I hope we are still a meritocracy. Bottom line, I just see a gap between the foundation and the community, and that gap gets bigger because of language and geografical differences. That's why I created the openEHR course in spanish and the ES community. My proposal is just a "help me help you" situation. Working towards medinfo, I hope we can join ours efforts in creating awareness, but it is not clear for me if we should organize community stuff separated from the foundation stuff or if we can narrow the gap. Kind regards, Pablo. Pablo Pazos [www.CaboLabs.com](http://www.CaboLabs.com) --- ## Post #26 by @pablo Hi Shinji, I'm all to collanorayion and adding value. Abouy the specific topic for the conference, I'm focusing one proposal on openEHR databases, a problem every developer do focus on when they start to work with openEHR. Because the organization is lookinh for tutorials in spanish the tutorial will be offered in spanish. I'll update yhe wili soon and start doing social communication to get more people involved. Cheers, Pablo Pazos [www.CaboLabs.com](http://www.CaboLabs.com) --- ## Post #27 by @system Only strong men can admit their weaknesses\. So this is a compliment for you\. My English is not very good also, but I come from a language related to English, while you come from a completely other part of the languages\-world\. --- ## Post #28 by @system I know you are doing a great job\. I often see your promotion for course in Spanish, on LinkedIn, on Google Plus \(maybe\)\. I forgot where, but I see it a few times a week\. That is really a good thing\. And it is necessary\. The specs are bad learning material, there are also not meant for that\. I remember, ten years ago, sitting at the swimming pool with my little children, reading OpenEHR\-specs\. They were hard to read because of their formal language\. It is no material for learning\. In learning people things, you need to come with examples, with stories, let the Reference Models and other specs live for people, make it fun to read\. Anyway, I came through, I did my best, and it was rewarded\. But many people are not able to do that, because they do not have the freedom to spend 50 hours or so on something which is not required to learn\. And reading the OpenEHR specs as a hobby in free time, that is asked too much for most of humanity\. I am an independent developer, almost twenty years now\. I choose myself how to spend my time, and a lot of time is used because I make choices which seem irrelevant\. But I don't mind\. I try to have a Buddhist view on it\. It are all steps to greater wisdom\. I am a lucky bastard\. "The master moves from program to program without fear\. No failure can harm him\. Why is this? He is filled with Tao\." But for the other people, young people, needing to study for their masters, old managers, need to understand for their decisions, politicians, relying on ISO, all these people need easy entrance to knowledge\. You try to get it of the ground\. You should not only do it in Spanish, but also in English\. I think you have a good business\-case when OpenEHR as an formal definition tries to get more status\. But you have a bad business\-case if it fails on the market\. It is not only in your hands\. You can comfort yourself with the thought that nothing in life will be done in vain\. In everything is a lesson\. With the lessons you have learned, you later can pick up something else\. But besides that, I hope the communities and foundation will support you, because it is important work that you do, for us all\. If we want something to be a success, we have to reach the hearts and minds\. Have a nice day Bert --- ## Post #29 by @ian.mcnicoll Hi Pablo, Firstly, I will be at MEDinfo2015 and would definitely hope to contribute some of the very interesting stuff emerging from HANDI-HOPD. I do recall our conversation about training and accreditation. Although I am on the Board, my response here is personal, not official! What you are suggesting is a very good idea, and was discussed further at the Oslo meeting. We know that a number of organisations around the world are now running openEHR related training, we know that trainees frequently ask for accreditation and trainers also see benefits in being able to claim they are 'openEHR accredited'. So if the Board was asked, "is this a good idea", I am sure you would get a positive answer. However a whole number of questions follow ... Is the organisation accredited or the course accredited? Who decides the criteria for accreditation of a course? Does every small variant of a course need accredited? Who checks the course content? In multiple languages? What are the rules of withdrawing accreditation? Who pays for all of the above? How do we ensure that anything that is decided is fair to both existing trainers and to new entrants and how do we ensure that this system is seen to be fair and transparent and not open to abuse. I am sure there are many more questions, and, of course there are solutions. Other organisations have faced similar problems and come up with answers that we can almost certainly use or adapt. So, it is doable, but who does it? Who puts in the work and effort to consult with current training organisations, speak to the broader membership, also other organisations what they do etc, etc? Who comes up with a final proposal to submit to the Board that if seen to be fair and sensible will almost cvertainly by 'rubber-stamped'. In my view the only people who can do this are those of us who have a commercial or academic interest in training. It is in our interest to have accrediation working - it is something demanded by our customers, and in our commercial interest. We are the ones with the knowledge of what it takes to be a good openEHR course, the ones who stand to lose if the proposals are done favour a competitor, and the only ones who can give up some of our IP, if the idea is to share some 'standard' resources. The Board simply has no capacity to do the ground work here, and in any case that would be inappropriate. Their job is to ratify (or not) a set of proposals coming from the training industry, in exactly the same way that the System Accreditation proposals will have to come from System developers like yourself. I believe that Heather Leslie and Evelyn Hovenga have been working on some ideas in this area - it might be worth contacting them to see if this could be the nexus of a 'Training Partners Group'. I am having a similar conversation elsewhere about Localisation. There have been private conversations about localisation and Koray posted a very detailed proposal but that is not enough, there needs to be input from other localisation groups so that openEHR can come up with a minimum but clear set of criteria for localisation. That takes work and discussion with the various parties around the world who have an interest in this area, but it does have to member-led. In the coming months, the interim Board will be replaced by an Elected Board (everyone who wants to vote or be nominated should sign up at [members.openehr.org](http://members.openehr.org)) but even then, the level of funding and personal resource that will available, will require Foundation resources to be concentrated on core communications and 'marketing' of openEHR. As I say just my view. Others may feel that openEHR should have much more central power and resource to drive these important and necessary efforts but they will then have to figure out how it gets funded. I will leave my thoughts on Standards to a different post but remember that there was a major effort led by David and Sam to have openEHR become part of IHTSDO. This went a long way but was ultimately rejected byt the IHTSDO board. I suspect that will not be the end of the story. Ian --- ## Post #30 by @thomas.beale This is such a fun topic I wrote a on it :) - thomas --- ## Post #31 by @system I commented to it: I agree Thomas, it is a fun topic, with billions of dollars involved, not quite so funny for who is paying them. You and me, the taxpayers. --- ## Post #32 by @Adrian_V_Stokes Andrew Tanenbaum: "The advantage of standards is that there are so many to choose from" \(Dr\) Adrian V Stokes OBE 97 Millway, Mill Hill, LONDON, NW7 3JL --- ## Post #33 by @thomas.beale Unfortunately neither of you were at the recent Oslo meeting \(don't worry, there will be more\), but the same sentiments about needing better learning materials were expressed by most people who are not already seasoned openEHR developers\. So we know we need to work on this, and various people have offered to do this\. It will take a combination of people who 'know stuff' and people who are learning to put together materials that work for newcomers\. I hope you both contribute\. One big enabling step that is finally about to happen is to move to a new server, where we can easily run multiple sites i\.e\. subdomains under openEHR\.org\. So we'll be able to set up some technical spaces for people to work on just those learning materials\. The main requirement of course is still people power\. With respect to making governments use openEHR, that's a hard one to solve because there is broken thinking in two places: official SDOs that publish paper, with no active maintenance or update, and governments that think 'official standards' are the only things to use\. Almost invariably, official standards in health \(and general\) IT \(with the exception of standards that were already /de facto/ before becoming /de jure/\) are the /worst/ place to start\. Some governments have smarter people though, and realise this\. The ones that don't will waste \(sometimes epic amounts of\) taxpayers' money\. In many places, this unholy SDO/government communion actively damages hopes for quality e\-health solutions in the future\. Government departments or bodies that are wilfully blind make it very hard, since they can't be reasoned with\. It's like reasoning with any other ideologue: you can't\. The only solutions I know of are a\) keep making noise about the de facto standardisation work on the ground and b\) wait for the next election ;\-\) \- thomas [details="(attachments)"] ![ocean\_full\_small.jpg|92x41](upload://omlkPxIt2jb2NPEgfRNrw9aCGOK.jpeg) ![btn\_liprofile\_blue\_80x15.png|80x15](upload://wvuEw46mMYRYzHqv86Wkoxe35S4.png) [/details] --- ## Post #34 by @thomas.beale oh the wastage is a crime, and it should be punishable. The austerity obsessed government here in the UK is causing great pain to people here due to cut-backs in the NHS, in the low £bn range. And yet it was apparently acceptable to spend over £8bn on what I guess is a few hundred million £ worth of IT (most being replaced as we speak anyway). I would like to hear those responsible defend their actions to the current generation of affected patients, and the overworked health carers... We can only try to do better in the future, and that means creating high quality, economically cheap technology. We're not very efficient yet in doing this in openEHR, but we can improve and I see uptake accelerating, which is good. As always, it's down to us - how we self-organise and work together. - thomas --- ## Post #35 by @pablo Hi Ian that's an awesome piece of input we can use to epose the main issues we're havong and maybe delineate actions that can be taken, considering the constraints you mentioned. For me Evelyn and Heather are key people in matters of education, and also the BR-PT community, and some others interested in training. I'll put together all off this, send it to the key people for consideration. Fix the proposals with feedback, share it with the community and try to define a clear guideline we all van follow in terms of what we do and how in terms of training. IMO we can't have a formal way of certification before having compatible and interoperable training materials, modules, evaluations, ... Cheers, Pablo Pazos [www.CaboLabs.com](http://www.CaboLabs.com) --- ## Post #36 by @Sam Thanks Pablo Good feedback. It has been difficult to keep up with everything and I am in no way trying to impede any activity. I believe this is the first International Medinfo in a country where openEHR is up and running. My wish is to have a group that coordinate the effort. If you feel you have this in hand, lets make sure it is public and people know who to go to. Are there any plans to have an openEHR stand? This could enable a group of companies to promote what they are doing? Evelyn Hovenga and Heather Grain have been working with Heather Leslie regarding accrediting training…. have you talked to them? Do we need a group coordinating this? Cheers Sam Dr Sam Heard Chairman, openEHR Foundation --- ## Post #37 by @siljelb I've added myself and a topic on artefact governance to the main MEDINFO2015 wiki page\. I guess this topic belongs more in a tutorial than in a developers' workshop\. My participation is however dependent on my employer allowing me to attend the conference, which isn't clear yet\. Kind regards, Silje Ljosland Bakke Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes, National ICT Norway Adviser, R&D dept, E\-health section, Bergen Hospital Trust Tel\. \+47 40203298 --- ## Post #38 by @system I replied following to it: --- ## Post #39 by @Stefan_Sauermann Hello\! If you are talking about "endorsed trainers" then you VERY CLEARY need to define \- what is training \- what is a trainer \- what is endorsed \- how do you get endorsed\. Otherwise very likely somebody will be angry, because \- they are not on the list of "endorsed trainers" \- they feel that the "endorsed trainers" are not as clever as themselves \- \.\.\.\.\. So: Similar to standards for software you will also need to define standards / guidelines for \- the intended learning outcome \- different levels of expertise \(e\.g "certified professional openEHR \- basic level", "CP openEHR \- advanced level" , \.\.\.\) \- the methods for assessment \- methods for training \- \.\.\.\.\.\. Having been through this all let me summarise \- it seems sensible to start by defining a "basic" skill level \- to then define the learning outcomes of that skill level \- to then define an exam for that skill level \- to formally provide exams from there on you can \- extend to "advanced" skill levels, and specialised skill sets \- go on by defining / offering training, courses, trainers etc\. This is no piece of cake\. It will not happen in 3 weeks\. Along the way you will need to "harmonise" the views of many individuals\. We all know that to "harmonise" consumes substantial resources\. This draws from first hand experience on certifying personal skills in the fields of software testing and IT interoperability in healthcare, as well as from years of teaching and building study programs in biomedical engineering\. Hope this helps, greetings from Vienna, Stefan Stefan Sauermann Program Director Biomedical Engineering Sciences \(Master\) University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien Hoechstaedtplatz 5, 1200 Vienna, Austria P: \+43 1 333 40 77 \- 988 M: \+43 664 6192555 E: stefan\.sauermann@technikum\-wien\.at I: www\.technikum\-wien\.at/mbe I: www\.technikum\-wien\.at/ibmt I: www\.healthy\-interoperability\.at --- ## Post #40 by @Dr_Carola_Hullin_Luc Dear All, Just need to be carefull about endorsing, that´s all. I can say. Just to ensure the quality of the work done internationally. I see the endorsement as a commercial thing rather than a quality measure at this point. This observation is based on experience with more than twenty three developing countries. Cheers Carol LATAM --- ## Post #41 by @pablo Hi Sam, I think right now the tutorial organization is happening in a very organic way: people are sharing they proposals so others can collaborate or detect possible overlaps. If we need a group to centralize coordination or communication with MedInfo organizers/chairs, I would propose the people interested no giving tutorials that is mentioned here: [http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015+-+Sao+Paulo%2C+Brazil](http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015+-+Sao+Paulo%2C+Brazil) On my part, I don't have resources to have an stand (flight + hotel + conference fee is not cheap for us), but if I can help in any way, e.g. the community can use me as an spanish speaker interlocutor, I'll be more than happy to help and add my grain of sand. About training, I'm doing a small survey to see what people think about the proposals already discussed on the lists. My goal is to curate that and to reach a new level of discussions beyond "ideas". I don't have Heather Grain's email, I'll gladly send her my little survey (Already sent to Heather L and Evelyn). Cheers, Pablo. --- ## Post #42 by @system Sorry guys for not being actively engaged in that discussion,but I have been busy doing real openEHR stuff. Critical software is beginning tô deploy the 100% openEHR nationwide EHR for a health insurance companies ,covering 18 Mio citizens, where I work as CMIO for the company, while we are deploying an instance of CKM to be the governance tool to everything, including terminologies. These two big enterprises will for sure put openEHR next year in a very privileged positions and I think we will be able to get a keynote speaker.A stand will be probably funded by the openEHR implemente rs and I also think I can get support of the government and from the health plan. But now i am in Amsterdam at.IHTSDO. Tty when I am.back in Town. Jussara Rötzsch, MD, MSc openEHR Foundation- Director CEO Giant Global Graph Soluçőes em Saúde --- ## Post #43 by @Sam Thanks Pablo It is a good team. I have added one possible topic and a couple of names. I would suggest that you lead this if you are able. We are keen to nominate a lead person for each conference. Then put together a team from the attendees. Linking to the Web site and ensuring your work is visible is important. The deadline of December 15 will arrive quicker than we expect. I will be pleased to assist in any way I can and have booked my ticket to the conference. Cheers, Sam Dr Sam Heard Chairman, openEHR Foundation --- ## Post #44 by @system "Sorry guys for not being actively engaged in that discussion" That doesn't matter. Good thing you are running, very big also. Such a success can becomes a success for us all. Best regards Bert --- ## Post #45 by @system Pablo, Heather Grain and I are working with Heather Leslie to develop the openEHR body of knowledge and an educational framework that will allow students to identify suitable learning pathways and enable educators to develop educational programs according to their own expertise and opportunities to deliver. It would be beneficial to have some time with all potential educators to discuss this further at Medinfo. Evelyn --- ## Post #46 by @system Hi Pablo, I will be in Medinfo therefore we can coordinate together the Spanish language resources ;-) Regards, Luis --- ## Post #47 by @siljelb No, there’s been no activity as far as I’ve seen. Is anyone else attending planning to present as part of a tutorial/workshop regarding clinical modelling? As far as I can see from the wiki page ([http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015+-+Sao+Paulo%2C+Brazil](http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015+-+Sao+Paulo%2c+Brazil)), the following could be categorised as clinically focused: [details="(attachments)"] ![image001.png|108x30](upload://wxrBBCRNPfgdfXy7K9vCyNyvhR2.png) [/details] --- ## Post #48 by @Sam No, there’s been no activity as far as I’ve seen. Is anyone else attending planning to present as part of a tutorial/workshop regarding clinical modelling? As far as I can see from the wiki page ([http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015+-+Sao+Paulo%2C+Brazil](http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015+-+Sao+Paulo%2c+Brazil)), the following could be categorised as clinically focused: [details="(attachments)"] ![image001.png|108x30](upload://wxrBBCRNPfgdfXy7K9vCyNyvhR2.png) [/details] --- ## Post #49 by @siljelb I’ve just checked, the deadline for papers is Monday December 22 as you wrote, but for workshops, panels, tutorials and demos it’s January 15 as I wrote in my previous email. I’m considering submitting my talk as a regular paper by Monday, and then see what we can get done by January 15 regarding any common program. [details="(attachments)"] ![image001.png|108x30](upload://wxrBBCRNPfgdfXy7K9vCyNyvhR2.png) [/details] --- ## Post #50 by @Nadim_Anani Dear Silje, I may be able to contribute to the ‘Education, training’ main topic below, reporting on our experience in teaching openEHR clinical modelling within our master’s programme in Stockholm. We’ve been teaching openEHR modelling concepts since early 2011. If that seems interesting, I could contribute to the proposal writing of that part. My participation in Sao Paulo would depend on whether I manage to get funding by then, however, but in case I don’t I suppose I could send some slides with my main messages to Pablo or someone else and coordinate with them to present my part. Kind regards, Nadim Nadim Anani, MSc, PhD student Centrum för hälsoinformatik / Health Informatics Centre (HIC) LIME Karolinska Institutet SE-17177 Stockholm, Sweden Tel. +46-8-524-83607 Email: nadim.anani@ki.se [details="(attachments)"] ![image001.png|108x30](upload://wxrBBCRNPfgdfXy7K9vCyNyvhR2.png) [/details] --- ## Post #51 by @system Sam, Silje, The papers are now due next Monday 22 December, workshops and tutorials are due 15 January. It’s important to differentiate between these. Workshops or Panel sessions are scheduled to be included in the conference itself, whereas tutorials are usually preconference and need to be paid for separately to attend. They often provide payment to the presenters as well. Heather Grain and I are planning to submit a proposal for a workshop and welcome your participation Silje and perhaps someone from Brazil who is also actively engaged in openEHR implementation. It’s important to agree on a theme/focus. My thoughts are to address the need for promoting a paradigm shift in thinking from systems to data and knowledge management. A tutorial can consider a more practical focus for people who have already made that paradigm shift and want to learn more. It’s important to consider the audience, the primary objective for the message we wish to convey and the result/outcome we want to achieve. For me the issue is about convincing decision makers and thought leaders/influencers about the value of adopting openEHR, associated issues that need to be overcome (paradigm shift in thinking and all that follows from that ) and what that means for the stakeholders. It’s essentially the business case. Workshops are usually one session equal to 4 papers – 1.5 hrs so we need to be realistic about what we can cover in that time frame. I suggest 4 speakers/Panel members, each delivering a 10-12 min presentation that contributes to the overall agreed focus so that we collectively tell a story from different perspectives, then use the remaining time for discussion and audience interaction. I welcome your ideas on this. I’ll give this more thought when time permits over the next couple of weeks and put a draft workshop/panel presentation proposal together. I’ll share that with this list for others to contribute. I suggest someone else take the lead on proposing a half or full day tutorial to be held pre-conference. Evelyn Dr Evelyn Hovenga, CEO & Director eHealth Education www.ehe.edu.au [details="(attachments)"] ![image001.png|108x30](upload://wxrBBCRNPfgdfXy7K9vCyNyvhR2.png) [/details] --- ## Post #52 by @system Let's go for a track on knowledge driven EHRs, se could have the na Keynote,one tutorial one or two panelsand a connectaton. I talked to one person of the scientific comission and they saída that sofar only a fez proposals sete fone and se have a big chance of approving that. [details="(attachments)"] ![image001.png|108x30](upload://wxrBBCRNPfgdfXy7K9vCyNyvhR2.png) [/details] --- ## Post #53 by @system They said, sofar only a few proposals were made, this corrector driven me crazy... [details="(attachments)"] ![image001.png|108x30](upload://wxrBBCRNPfgdfXy7K9vCyNyvhR2.png) [/details] --- ## Post #54 by @system Hi colleagues, I am preparing to submit openEHR developers' workshop in this openEHR wiki page\. https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4554784 If you got interested in participating this workshop, please add your name and brief summary\(100\-200 words\) of your project on this wiki until Dec 31 2014\. Anyone can join this workshop, if you have working on development around openEHR\. Thank you for your concern about this workshop and contributing on wiki\. I am looking forward to meeting you in Sao Paolo\. Shinji KOBAYASHI --- ## Post #55 by @siljelb I’d be happy to participate in any of these schemes, but I need to know how I should send my proposal. If we go for a separate track, will I have to send my proposal as a paper, or as part of a workshop proposal in January? Regards, **Silje** [details="(attachments)"] ![image001.png|108x30](upload://wxrBBCRNPfgdfXy7K9vCyNyvhR2.png) [/details] --- ## Post #56 by @system Silje I strongly recommend that you also submit your own proposal for a paper or poster presentation to share your work with others. The SPC will decide what they want to include in the final program. You can give that a slightly different focus than what you include in the workshop proposal to have a better chance for both being accepted. Regards, Evelyn [details="(attachments)"] ![image001.png|108x30](upload://wxrBBCRNPfgdfXy7K9vCyNyvhR2.png) [/details] --- ## Post #57 by @Sam Silje I strongly recommend that you also submit your own proposal for a paper or poster presentation to share your work with others. The SPC will decide what they want to include in the final program. You can give that a slightly different focus than what you include in the workshop proposal to have a better chance for both being accepted. Regards, Evelyn [details="(attachments)"] ![image001.png|108x30](upload://wxrBBCRNPfgdfXy7K9vCyNyvhR2.png) [/details] --- ## Post #58 by @system Heather Grain and I have also submitted a paper titled An Information Paradigm Shift is Required to realise EHR Benefits. It presents the case for adopting openEHR. Evelyn [details="(attachments)"] ![image001.png|108x30](upload://wxrBBCRNPfgdfXy7K9vCyNyvhR2.png) [/details] --- ## Post #59 by @Sam Heather Grain and I have also submitted a paper titled An Information Paradigm Shift is Required to realise EHR Benefits. It presents the case for adopting openEHR. Evelyn [details="(attachments)"] ![image001.png|108x30](upload://wxrBBCRNPfgdfXy7K9vCyNyvhR2.png) [/details] --- ## Post #60 by @siljelb I’ve submitted a poster titled “National governance of archetypes in Norway”, about our experiences implementing a national governance scheme. [details="(attachments)"] ![image001.png|108x30](upload://wxrBBCRNPfgdfXy7K9vCyNyvhR2.png) [/details] --- ## Post #61 by @pablo Hi Shinji, I've added my projects there. BTW, yesterday I presented a paper about an open source EHR platform based on openEHR as a vision paper, I hope to be accepted! Happy holidays for everyone! --- ## Post #62 by @system Hi colleagues, Can I finalize this developers' workshop proposal? https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4554784 Today is just before one week to the workshop deadline\. Shinji KOBAYASHI --- ## Post #63 by @pablo Hi all, I'm also finalizing the proposal for the clinical database workshop, please review it here: [https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4554760](https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4554760) If anyone wants to modify or add anything, just add a comment on the wiki. The deadline is next week, please hurry up if you want to review the contents. Thanks! --- ## Post #64 by @pablo (resending this because it was rejected by the lists, sorry if you received this twice) Hi all, I'm also finalizing the proposal for the clinical database workshop, please review it here: [https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4554760](https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4554760) If anyone wants to modify or add anything, just add a comment on the wiki. The deadline is next week, please hurry up if you want to review the contents. Thanks! --- ## Post #65 by @ian.mcnicoll Hi Shinji, Very many thanks for leading on this\. Is there anything in particular you need from me or others? I will add a couple of lines on Educational goals and a couple of references, though they will not be particularly ‘academic’ in my case\. Is the current content ok? Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile \+44 \(0\)775 209 7859 office \+44 \(0\)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: ian@freshehr\.com twitter: @ianmcnicoll Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Director, openEHR Foundation Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon\. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL --- ## Post #66 by @thomas.beale Pablo, nothing to specifically add to your tutorial, but just to let you know that a new version (should be very close to the final draft before entering a community process) of ADL / AOM 2 will be published, which will contain a proper formal description and model of templates, overlays and operational templates, which should help you as you develop the content of the tutorial. - thomas --- ## Post #67 by @pablo Thanks Thomas, just want to get sufficient experience in the new stuff before preparing the tutorial contents. Maybe we can go with 1.4 and we need another tutorial on how to go from 1.5 to 1.5/2.0 (I will attend to that for sure!). --- **Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/medinfo-2015-openehr-tutorials/15127 **Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/medinfo-2015-openehr-tutorials/15127