Thanks William
Maybe Dutch clinicians are cleverer than Australian ones :) - but UML
is very technical and takes a long time to read and understand
fluently. We certainly never require anyone to read the ADL -
just like you would never expect someone using software to have to read
the source code to understand how it works. Some will - most won't
even want to go there and should never have to.
The archetype editor is never likely to spit out HL7 v3 RIM specs as
the outputs and internal function is all based on the openEHR reference
model - I think you would have to write a different tool. What we are
doing with the transforms is not producing models but producing XML
schema that can produce an instance of something like an instance of an
HL7 CDA document from an automatically generated XML schema from
openEHR models. We haven't attempted ever to produce HL7 models.
The tool currently automatically generates the XML schema without any
tweaking from an openEHR template (called a Template Data Schema). The
template may map to something like a application data schema or an
HL7v2 message. This schema can be used to produce an XML document using
XML based tools (a Template Data Document) and then transformed into an
instance of some other thing like an openEHR data instance, a pdf, or a
CDA instance. To produce the CDA instance, we need to create a
transform based on each archetype in the Template Data Schema and put
them together into a bigger transform. These archetype based
transforms require a lot of knowledge of CDA and the RIM to produce,
however once done once, they can be reused over and over as a library
and the CDA produced is always consistent. But at the end of the day,
we are still getting a CDA instance and not any kind of V3 model.
Maybe I am still a little confused about what DCM is hoping to achieve
- sorry.
regards Hugh
Williamtfgoossen@cs.com wrote:
In a message dated 4-12-2008 1:50:06 W.
Europe Standard Time, hugh.leslie@oceaninformatics.com writes:
Hi William
I still can't see how we are ever going to engage clinicians in signing
off on these DCM models if they can only participate in the
requirements collection phase and can't comment on the models
themselves? There will be literally only a handful of clinical people
around the world who will be able to get their heads around UML (or XML
Transforms?) to understand what the model means. I believe that this
is the big advantage of archetypes, because they are approachable for
non technical clinicians.
regards Hugh
Hi Hugh,
I think you misjudge the qualities of clinicians. See my paper in Int
Jrn Med Informatics on the perinatology project. At that time we
explained clinicians without IT background how the UML models (HL7 RIM
format, even complexer), and after two sessions explaining goal of
project and how modelling works and how they can express data needs
etc, they could fully engage in the project and critically review the
models, their relationships and the content of it.
I agree we need to make it simpler. Entering material in the archetype
editor is. Reading the adl is not. :-)
DCM is not about UML, DCM is about setting criteria for clinical
content and so on.
UML can be used, HL7 can be used, archetype can be used, XML can be
used.
If someone uses A, we as IT specialist should guarantee that the same
concept remains if we choose to use B.
If the archetype editor would spit out a full HL7 v3 clinical statement
spec, including the code, value, datatype and moodcode for instance
(others attributes upon need) e.g. in the MIF format, then we can do
business with DCM moving to one format only. However this is still not
the case.
I understood that the transformation tools currently existing still
require a lot of manual tweeking.
Sincerely yours,
dr. William TF Goossen
director
Results 4 Care b.v.
De Stinse 15
3823 VM Amersfoort
the Netherlands
email: Results4Care@cs.com
phone + 31654614458
fax +3133 2570169
www.results4care.nl
Dutch Chamber of Commerce number: 32133713
_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical@openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3662 (20081203) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
|