RE: Clinical Observations Interoperability, topics to discuss


Good to know we have very similar thoughts. I do think it's important we revisit the objectives regularly, otherwise we might miss the bigger picture of secondary use.

I'm not arguing for more or broader use cases, actually the present one is very relevant, but for the importance to keep the long term objective in mind when we develop the use case.

I hope the discussions went well yesterday, had to leave due to the phone line (the sound quality was lousy).


-----Original Message-----
From: Kashyap, Vipul [mailto:VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG]
Sent: 8 november 2007 16:58
To: Andersson, Bo H
Cc:; Stanley Huff; Oniki, Tom (GE Healthcare,
consultant); Jonathan Rees; Alan Ruttenberg
Subject: RE: Clinical Observations Interoperability, topics to discuss


Thanks for the feedback!
In general, I believe that we share the same objectives at a "conceptual"
level, though there might be some differences related to approach and

I will definitely put these as questions to be discussed in the brainstorming
Let me try to understand them a little better.

> - Our understanding is that the objective for the "Clinical 
> Observations Interoperability" group is to come up with a 
> proposal how to facilitate secondary use of clinical 
> observations (i.e. the data) across clinical practice and 
> clinical trials. Our use case details one specific example.
> We have tried to explain our view in the slid set at the wiki.
> Does everybody agree about the objective?

Absolutely. This is clearly the high level objective.
Towards this end, we are focusing on one use case: Patient Recruitment using
Clinical Trials.
This is by no means meant to exclude others, but I guess we need to start
somewhere. But I am sure
we can consider other use cases as well as we move forward.

> - What we need is a solution that is robust over time; our 
> personal experience is that mapping between items on 
> different levels will not be sustainable.
> At the TC Alan described how robust "concepts", e.g. parts of 
>  existing concept system (terminologies), could be "promoted 
> / established" to a domain level (ontology).  
> We propose a discussion around if this approach can be used 
> to establish domain models for areas of clinical observations? 

This is exactly the approach to create "domain models" and mappings which are
The only difference in that this so could approach should some how tie in to
existing industry standards
and if not we should have convincing reasons for the same.

So, I would consider this as dual objectives which could go hand in hand.

> - If yes on previous question, we propose to use this 
> approach when developing the use case. Is that doable?
> If not, what solution is available that meet our requirement? 

I think the approach we are suggesting is to take individual examples such as
blood pressure and work
our way to the objective you described. It will be valuable for us to ground our
objective in real world
examples and industry standards and I think you are agreeable to that.



The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this information.

Received on Friday, 9 November 2007 11:48:28 UTC