# New content review round for Adverse Reaction **Category:** [Implementers (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/implementers-archive/158) **Created:** 2012-01-16 11:51 UTC **Views:** 2 **Replies:** 8 **URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/new-content-review-round-for-adverse-reaction/15133 --- ## Post #1 by @heather.leslie Just to let you all know that I have just uploaded a significantly remodelled Adverse Reaction draft archetype and initiated a review round for it. It has certainly been some time since the first review round, yet there has been considerable activity elsewhere. The time has come to consolidate this work and seek openEHR community input again. This latest archetype has been fundamentally reworked based on previous openEHR review comments, research and inclusion of input from HL7, ICH, Intermountain Healthcare CEMs, identification of statutory and reporting requirements and feedback from 5 rounds of NEHTA CKM reviews in Australia - see [http://dcm.nehta.org.au/ckm/OKM.html#showarchetype_1013.1.868](http://dcm.nehta.org.au/ckm/OKM.html#showarchetype_1013.1.868). The resulting archetype that we are sending out for review has major changes since our first review round by the openEHR community. In fact, it has effectively been remodelled and the changes are so significant that any implementers who have utilised the previous draft model should regard this draft model as a new version. Because of the major restructure of the model, we have also taken the opportunity to revise the archetype ID as well - now OBSERVATION.adverse_reaction - to better reflect the intent of the model and be consistent with updated editorial naming policies. Overview of changes: - Significant enhancement of Concept Description, Purpose, Use, Misuse, Keywords and References. - 'Agent' is now referred to 'Substance/Agent' throughout - Addition of Absolute Contraindication; Future Use; Overall Comment; Slots for Additional Reaction Detail, Additional Exposure Detail and Reporting Details; Exposure description; Earliest Exposure; Clinical Management Description; Multimedia; & Reaction Comment - Addition of Protocol containing Reaction Reported?, Link to supportive clinical information, Link to Adverse Reaction Report - Modification of "Probability of Causation' to 'Certainty’ - Inclusion of Translation - Arabic (Syrian) and German (Standard) where data elements/descriptions are consistent with original translations. - Inclusion of NEHTA reviewers as contributors We welcome anyone who would like to participate in the review to do so by registering in CKM and ‘adopting’ the archetype. **Please don’t email me directly, but adopt the archetype within CKM.** Instructions for Adopting archetypes are here: [http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/healthmod/Adopt+an+archetype](http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/healthmod/Adopt+an+archetype) Kind Regards Heather **Dr Heather Leslie** MBBS FRACGP FACHI Director of Clinical Modelling **[Ocean Informatics](http://www.oceaninformatics.com/)** Phone (Aust) +61 (0)418 966 670 Skype - heatherleslie Twitter - @omowizard --- ## Post #2 by @Stef_Verlinden1 Great work\. What I don't understand is why this is published in the Nehta CKM which also owns the copyright of this archetype \(with no license attached to it\)\. My understanding is that the work derived from the openehr community will be published under a CC license\. How do we deal with this situation? Cheers, Stef --- ## Post #3 by @ian.mcnicoll Hi Stef, I think this is a very important issue in the long\-term but my view of the current position is that this an openEHR copyrighted and CC\-licensed archetype, based on a NEHTA archetype, which itself was based on an earlier openEHR archetype\. My understanding is that like most governmental bodies, NEHTA were obliged to copyright and license their archetypes to fit govt\. policy, that their legal departments are struggling to find an appropriate mechanism to work in a broader community but that there is no desire to lock\-out the use or adaptation of any of their archetypes by the wider community\. This is going to be a recurring situation with many countries who are prepared to be 'not evil' in terms of sharing assets but also have to comply with internal legislation or policy\. e\.g Although the UK govt has recently changed its policy on open licensing, it remains UK specific and, in theory may cause us issues\. It will be interesting to see how CIMI might approach this problem too\. I agree it needs clarification \( over time\) but I think we should feel comfortable that we are not gong to be transported to Oz to answer for copyright theft\. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office \+44 \(0\)1536 414 994 fax \+44 \(0\)1536 516317 mobile \+44 \(0\)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian\.mcnicoll@oceaninformatics\.com Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK Director/Clinical Knowledge Editor openEHR Foundation www\.openehr\.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care www\.phcsg\.org --- ## Post #4 by @thomas.beale For what it's worth, the situation is exactly the same in the UK with Crown British copyright being required on all public artefacts, but a very liberal licence \- usually Apache 2 or one of the CC licenses, as far as I understand\. \- thomas --- ## Post #5 by @Stef_Verlinden1 OK, but for now it (the NEHTA AT) states '© National E-Health Transition Authority' which IMO means that all the content is proprietary to NEHTA and 'our' contributions probably as well... Don't want to stir the CC discussion up again but we need to be careful here. Cheers, Stef --- ## Post #6 by @ian.mcnicoll Hi Stef, I think your concern is valid\. I have expressed similar worries in the past but I honestly believe that, at least in this case, the issue is one of legal treacle rather than ill intent\. In fact, I suspect that the original openEHR archetype was based on a older piece of Australian work, modified by the English US copyright, then of course taken up again in Australia\. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office \+44 \(0\)1536 414 994 fax \+44 \(0\)1536 516317 mobile \+44 \(0\)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian\.mcnicoll@oceaninformatics\.com Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK Director/Clinical Knowledge Editor openEHR Foundation www\.openehr\.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care www\.phcsg\.org --- ## Post #7 by @Stef_Verlinden1 OK, lets continue to make more great archetypes\. Cheers, Stef --- ## Post #8 by @Eric_Browne NEHTA is not a government body\. It is not governed by any specific Acts of State or Australian Governments\. It is incorporated under Australian Corporations Law and is not 'obliged' to copyright and license Archetypes in the way that government departments and agencies might be\. NEHTA may well wish to do so, but I would be surprised if much deliberation has gone into the process hithertofore\. I'm not an expert in copyright law, and so I struggle to understand what a copyright claim on an archetype might mean\. I too agree that clarification, both of any copyright claims and licensing rights/restrictions should be established\. I agree that it is an international issue, but the clarification process may struggle with the vagaries of a multitude of individual states' laws\. As for transportation to Oz, I would caution that some of we Australians have long memories\. ;\-\) eric browne --- ## Post #9 by @thomas.beale the important thing is to find out what the licence is, not what the copyright is. If there is no licence, I agree, this should be checked, because Nehta is a publicly funded body, and should not be creating anything proprietary. - thomas --- **Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/new-content-review-round-for-adverse-reaction/15133 **Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/new-content-review-round-for-adverse-reaction/15133