1. Stand openEHR Templates, Knowledge Manager, Qualität der Archetypen Dr. Sebastian Garde ByMedConnect Projekttreffen 12. März 2010

2. © Ocean Informatics 2009 Templates Bis jetzt: OET – keine offizielle openEHR Spezifikation Jetzt: Basiert auf ADL 1.5 Operational Template = Verbindung zw. Spezifikation und Archetypen Mehrspraching Spezialisierbar...genau wie Archetypen XML Präsentation ?! 1 Datei oder viele ?! http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/openEHR+Templates+and+Spec ialised+Archetypes

3. Templates in CKM

4. © Ocean Informatics 2008 Quality Assurance EuroRec: „A Quality Assurance and Certification process started at least partially based on new methods for Archetype Design Already published.“ Q-Rec deliverable 3.3 Management and maintenance policies for EHR interoperability resources Dipak Kalra, University College London, UK Gerard Freriks, TNO, NL François Mennerat, ProRec France, FR Jos Devlies, ProRec Belgium & EuroRec, BE Archana Tapuria, University College London, UK Geert Thienpont, RAMIT, BE 2.4 Archetype Quality Criteria & 2.5 Adoption of High Quality Archetypes http://www.eurorec.org/files/filesPublic/Q-RECDeliverable3.3.pdf

5. © Ocean Informatics 2008 Q-REC – Clinical Team If a clinical team is to trust and adopt a set of archetypes, the following set of questions probably all need to be addressed through archetype quality assurance and quality labelling: is it clear what clinical situations it is to be used for? how inclusive is it of the kinds of patients we treat? is it flexible enough for our needs? what kinds of patients is it intended for? (children?, elderly?) has it been designed with suitable multi-professional input and domain experts? what clinical evidence and guidelines does it follow? or, is its model based on an existing well-accepted system? by whom has the archetype been peer reviewed? has it been endorsed by one or more professional bodies? has it been quality labelled by a body that I trust?

6. © Ocean Informatics 2008 Q-REC – CTO / Vendor And how could a CTO or vendor know if an archetype is safe to implement?  which use cases and users should have access to it?  does it clash with any other archetypes we already implement?  does it conform to a technical standard?  does it align with data standards that I also have to report on?  has it been tested?  can I verify the authenticity of the copy I have?  can I verify its currency (is it the latest version)?  how will I be notified of updates?  how are terminology bindings maintained and disseminated?  it is published by a certified repository?  has it been quality labelled by a body that I trust?

7. © Ocean Informatics 2009 Qualität von Archetypen Sunju Ahn: Developing Metrics based on the Quality document... Wie viel sagt dies über Qualität aus?

8. © Ocean Informatics 2008 Quality Metrics Neuland! Q-REC Exzellente Prinzipen Praktische Ideen Aber schwer exakte Metriken zu finden und anzuwenden “I know a good archetype when I see it” Peer-review

9. © Ocean Informatics 2009 Qualtität von Archetypen Understanding the content quality of an archetype does require very specific domain knowledge e.g. the fact that the Glasgow Coma Scale needs qualifiers when the patient has known visual problems etc. Need to harness the 'wisdom of crowds' - > Web 2.0 approach

10. EuroRec Quality Assurance Dipak Kalra trying to get funds to investigate how to set this up in practice. openEHR: looking forward to this (and also the DCM work)...but believe that Web 2.0 approaches that harness the international collective intelligence are indespensible EuroRec Qualitätssiegel?

11. © Ocean Informatics 2008 CKM Quality Review report  How many reviewers?  How many reviews?  How many review rounds?  Number of comment headers?  Distribution of reviewer countries?  Should we add professional qualifications / current position to the user profiles?  Do we need to add some way of tracking use of archetypes for casual view/academic interest training purposes/ actual systems development  explore community metrics e.g. question when someone views re 'fit for purpose' -> 5 star rating  Endorsements by professional bodies