We have had a dump of material delivered late last week. Here are the links to the files
The seven actual documents are all pretty imposing and complicated and extend to 100+ pages each not that there is not a heap of boilerplate within each.
I wondered just what these specifications were for and who was expected to use them.
Going to the NEHTA Site makes things a lot clearer:
Data Specifications
The data specifications aim to standardise the information structure and languagethat names and describes clinical concepts, and to provide a basis for the development of further, context-targeted specifications that can be implemented by system designers.
They are notintended to be software or messaging design specifications. Instead, they represent the clinical information requirements for data collection and information exchange to facilitate safe and effective continuity of care across healthcare for example, General Practice and Acute Care.
Intended Audience
This resource is targeted at:
- jurisdictional ICT managers
- clinicians involved in clinical information system specifications
- software architects and developers, and
- implementers of clinical information systems and other relevant applications in various healthcare settings.
The content is reasonably technical in nature and expects the audience to be familiar with the language of health data specification and have some familiarity with Australian Standards for health messaging, and/or repositories of data specifications.
This information is found here:
Looking at the actual files I note, for example, the Pathology Detailed Clinical Model first appeared as Version 1.0 on 29 May, 2007.
Some 4.25 years later we get a recast version 2.0.
The questions which rush into my mind are:
Who is actually using and implementing these specifications after 4 years?
If anyone has implemented what value have they seen from implementation and use?
Why might software developers choose to use them in isolation - as there does not seem to be any ongoing plan for them?
How will these specifications be maintained over time and who takes over if NEHTA is not funded in perpetuity?
Is sematic interoperation achievable without an agreed data model and is that model part of these specifications? I do understand the need for data and information clarity if information is to be exchanged between systems but with SNOMED -AU and AMT both in a less than finalised state where does this all fit?
It is by no means clear to me just what the underlying data-model for all this is, who owns it and maintains it etc.
With PCEHR software being sourced internationally just where do these data group etc. fit?
Overall, thus far, there seems to have been a lot of work done for no obvious outcome. I look forward to having all this explained to me.
I do note that talking about Detailed Clinical Models (DCMs) NEHTA says:
“The collaboration process in the NEHTA Clinical Knowledge Manager (CKM) will result in a library of archetypes (initially openEHR archetypes) based upon requirements identified by Australian clinicians and other health domain experts, and drawing from comparable work overseas. To create the DCMs, these archetypes will be transformed into platform and reference model agnostic models (based upon ISO 11179). They will then be uploaded to the National Information Component Library that NEHTA is in the process of building.
Initially, the DCMs will be available only in human-readable PDF format. In the medium term we intend to make them available in a number of machine-readable formats, and we will consult the community to determine what formats are required. CKM is being used to gather and formalise requirements for the DCMs and to support the life cycle management of each DCM through a collaborative, online review process. This provides an important vehicle for clinicians and domain experts to validate that the clinical requirements have been met, and warrant that the resulting published DCMs are safe, high quality and fit for purpose. They will then be uploaded to the National Information Component Library that NEHTA is in the process of building.”
More here:
I wonder is the National Information Component Library the data model that seems to be missing to underpin all this - and a range of other initiatives or is there something else at a more structured level?
I suspect we are yet to see the full picture of where this is all headed. I am happy for all brief explanations as to what these really mean and who will actually deploy them.
David.
0 comments:
Post a Comment