Question from Heather Leslie:
How to get more cooperation bw FHIR resource devt & clinically verified openEHR archetypes to shared data roadmap for future?
Answer Questions in response:
Well, my immediate question is, “what does clinically verified mean?” Is there any archetypes that are clinically verified, and how would we know? The openEHR eco-system has several different versions of most archetypes, each with different clinical stake holders involved to a variable degree. Which, if any of them, are clinical verified , and by who? And what does “verified” mean – other than that it’s being used (happily?) in practice?
I’m sure I’ll get vigorous response to these questions on the openEHR blogs – I’ll link to responses from here.
Having said that, I would love to get more involvement between openEHR and HL7 on the design of the clinical resources. The openEHR community has a higher level of clinician involvement, and does tend to have a practical focus, and these are good things that I’d love to link into the FHIR process, and if that drives further convergence between the communities, then that’s even better.
As for a process, well, it’s a good time to kick off a new process – the FHIR DSTU has been published, and we’re back to asking big questions around what changes and improvements that next version of FHIR will have. I would think that the process starts with a mapping between the FHIR resources and the relevant related openEHR archetypes. In fact, a few members of the openEHR community were going to initiate that process themselves, but nothing has eventuated yet. If we focus on the existing resources, and get the process and the concepts sorted out there, then this will automatically grow into proposals for new resources.
If anyone in the openEHR community wants to have a go at that, I and other members of the FHIR community will be happy to review the mappings and help out with the process.