# OpenEhr comparison to GEHR

**Category:** [Technical (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/technical-archive/156)
**Created:** 2006-02-08 16:26 UTC
**Views:** 2
**Replies:** 1
**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/openehr-comparison-to-gehr/12061

---

## Post #1 by @system

Hi,

Is it possible to find information about the pro's and contra's of OpenEhr
compared to GEHR \(HealthOne\)?

HealthOne has the advantage that it already is build on a proven concept, and
has binaries which are thoroughly tested on the market\.
But it is not OpenSource, which is a disadvantage\.

Besides that, more important is how OpenEhr differs as a result now or in
future\.

Let me explain what I have seen from Healthone\.

It has an archetype\-kind of layer\. it will be extended to compatibility to
OpenEhr archetypes, I was told\.
The archetypes are build of medical\-terms, I called it Dictionary, yesterday\.
It is a list of 6000 terms, in five languages, it can be extended if needed\.
But you need HealthOne to do that, or else other Healthone users cannot read
your records fully\.
Chances are not may that ever a HealthOne system will read records directly\.
Mostly they will have to be translated to an intermediate format, like
Edifact, which is in the Netjherlands used a lot\.

What are possible weaknesses in this design, and how does OpenEhr solve this?
Are there other weaknesses in GEHR \(Healthone\)?, if there was none, then
progress would hardly be possible ;\-\)

Can someone point me to locations on the Internet where this is discussed, or
can someone explain this for me?

I will be very thankful\.

---

## Post #2 by @thomas.beale

Bert Verhees wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to find information about the pro's and contra's of OpenEhr compared to GEHR \(HealthOne\)?
>
> HealthOne has the advantage that it already is build on a proven concept, and has binaries which are thoroughly tested on the market\.
> But it is not OpenSource, which is a disadvantage\.
>  

Health\.one is built on the GEHR models from 10 years ago\. There were no archetypes, and no differentiation of Entry types or data structures; also only a rudimentary model of version control \(which I was responsible for defining in the GEHR project\)\. In short \- based on a very simplistic reference model which is 10 years' back in the genetic history of openEHR\.
> Besides that, more important is how OpenEhr differs as a result now or in future\.
>
> Let me explain what I have seen from Healthone\.
>
> It has an archetype\-kind of layer\. it will be extended to compatibility to OpenEhr archetypes, I was told\.
> The archetypes are build of medical\-terms, I called it Dictionary, yesterday\.
> It is a list of 6000 terms, in five languages, it can be extended if needed\.
> But you need HealthOne to do that, or else other Healthone users cannot read your records fully\.
> Chances are not may that ever a HealthOne system will read records directly\. Mostly they will have to be translated to an intermediate format, like Edifact, which is in the Netjherlands used a lot\.
>
> What are possible weaknesses in this design, and how does OpenEhr solve this?
> Are there other weaknesses in GEHR \(Healthone\)?, if there was none, then progress would hardly be possible ;\-\)
>  

I can't comment on the current version of Health\.one, but I don't believe it has archetypes\. It probably could be re\-engineered to have them though\. The advantage of openEHR is that an openEHR system can import and export its data in openEHR format \(publicly defined XML\-schemas\) and CEN EN13606 format \(also publicly defined, and a European standard\)\. Tools and methods will also be available to import HL7v2 messages; we are developing some in Australia\.

The ideal proposal for Health\.one in the future is to marry its front\-end to an openEHR back\-end\.

\- thomas

---


**Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/openehr-comparison-to-gehr/12061
**Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/openehr-comparison-to-gehr/12061