The Value of Integration Archetypes

Implementation
, ,
1

Hi all,
We’re currently looking at pulling in an awful blob of HL7 v2.? into openEHR and I have read about integration archetypes in the specification. I’m trying to understand if they have value for our use case where we have already taken the XML input and created a data transfer object that represents the input as a basic JSON structure. We are looking at the appropriate component to do this basic conversion but seeking to represent it in a usable, uniform way. This is then mapped to an opt to represent the semantic coherence with the input message, but with ‘designed’ archetypes.

I believe, we’ve mimicked the integration archetype approach but taken that step prior to a the feed into the openEHR platform. We would be looking to standardise this with a transforms engine/proxy service but I want to make sure I am understanding the integration archetype approach, and that it probably does not apply to our standard processes/components we use at the moment?

2

I know there are other views but I think we can generally do a whole lot better in matching those kind of datastreams to ‘proper’ archetypes, albeit there will need to be local extensions. A few years ago, we basically modelled a target composition for the IHR (in its HealthCare Gateway incarnation) and pulled data from E-MIS.

The ICDR*.* templates in Apperta CKM will cover a lot of that content - I would start there, even if it meant re-factoring them into a single template to make the integration easier.

2 Likes