| Interoperability [message #4171] |
Fri, 22 July 2005 11:37  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: grahameg.jivaehealth.com
hi
This is just a short note to introduce Jiva eHealth.
We have been asked to look at the interoperability part
of the Open Healthcase Framework.
We are just architectural commencing planning, including
considerations of related frameworks and which frameworks
are relevent.
My name is Grahame Grieve and I am CTO for Jiva e-Health.
I'd be happy to hear either in this forum or privately
from any one who wishes to offer opinions about the
interoperability portion of the EOHF (refer the proposal
posted by Brian Barry)
Grahame
|
|
|
|
| Re: Interoperability [message #4449 is a reply to message #4381] |
Tue, 09 August 2005 17:25  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: grahameg.jivaehealth.com
Hi Don
Don J wrote:
> First, I note that the term "interoperability", when used in the proposal,
> seems to be referring to lower-level "semantic" and upper-level syntactic
> interoperability without addressing underlying transport-level
> interoperability issues.
I think that transport is in scope, but you are certainly right that
semantic interoperability is where the focus will be
> While the text mentions the HL7 CDA, it indicates that it may be taken into
> account "as the project proceeds". However, it would seem that early support
> for CDA-CRS ("Care Record Summary") standard is desirable. The relative
> "stand-alone" and cross-organisation nature of many use cases (e.g. transfer
> of care) that build upon the CDA make it ideal for early support on the OHF.
> Both the HL7 CDA-CRS and the similar ASTM CCR ("Continuity of Care Record")
> standards have been on a fast track because of their prospect for immediate
> benefits to healthcare providers and patients even when an existing patient
> record and practice management system is still paper based. The availability
> of a generic CDA processor plug-in would be a valuable resource to
> healthcare application developers.
What do you think that a "generic CDA processor plug-in" would do?
Grahame
|
|
|
| Re: Interoperability [message #563524 is a reply to message #4171] |
Tue, 09 August 2005 11:55 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
First, I note that the term "interoperability", when used in the proposal,
seems to be referring to lower-level "semantic" and upper-level syntactic
interoperability without addressing underlying transport-level
interoperability issues.
While the text mentions the HL7 CDA, it indicates that it may be taken into
account "as the project proceeds". However, it would seem that early support
for CDA-CRS ("Care Record Summary") standard is desirable. The relative
"stand-alone" and cross-organisation nature of many use cases (e.g. transfer
of care) that build upon the CDA make it ideal for early support on the OHF.
Both the HL7 CDA-CRS and the similar ASTM CCR ("Continuity of Care Record")
standards have been on a fast track because of their prospect for immediate
benefits to healthcare providers and patients even when an existing patient
record and practice management system is still paper based. The availability
of a generic CDA processor plug-in would be a valuable resource to
healthcare application developers.
"Grahame Grieve" <grahameg@jivaehealth.com> wrote in message
news:dbr3vd$tsa$1@news.eclipse.org...
> hi
>
> This is just a short note to introduce Jiva eHealth.
> We have been asked to look at the interoperability part
> of the Open Healthcase Framework.
>
> We are just architectural commencing planning, including
> considerations of related frameworks and which frameworks
> are relevent.
>
> My name is Grahame Grieve and I am CTO for Jiva e-Health.
> I'd be happy to hear either in this forum or privately
> from any one who wishes to offer opinions about the
> interoperability portion of the EOHF (refer the proposal
> posted by Brian Barry)
>
> Grahame
|
|
|
| Re: Interoperability [message #563545 is a reply to message #4381] |
Tue, 09 August 2005 17:25 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Don
Don J wrote:
> First, I note that the term "interoperability", when used in the proposal,
> seems to be referring to lower-level "semantic" and upper-level syntactic
> interoperability without addressing underlying transport-level
> interoperability issues.
I think that transport is in scope, but you are certainly right that
semantic interoperability is where the focus will be
> While the text mentions the HL7 CDA, it indicates that it may be taken into
> account "as the project proceeds". However, it would seem that early support
> for CDA-CRS ("Care Record Summary") standard is desirable. The relative
> "stand-alone" and cross-organisation nature of many use cases (e.g. transfer
> of care) that build upon the CDA make it ideal for early support on the OHF.
> Both the HL7 CDA-CRS and the similar ASTM CCR ("Continuity of Care Record")
> standards have been on a fast track because of their prospect for immediate
> benefits to healthcare providers and patients even when an existing patient
> record and practice management system is still paper based. The availability
> of a generic CDA processor plug-in would be a valuable resource to
> healthcare application developers.
What do you think that a "generic CDA processor plug-in" would do?
Grahame
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.06718 seconds
Home