tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733369142232047956.post3468770979649714479..comments2024-03-09T06:21:40.514+02:00Comments on CreativITy: Assuring Strong HL7 V.3 Message AdaptationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733369142232047956.post-32709161671017616042010-08-18T14:38:27.475+03:002010-08-18T14:38:27.475+03:00The high adoption rate of HL7 v2 in some countries...The high adoption rate of HL7 v2 in some countries certainly slows the adoption rate of HL7 v3. HL7 v3 was explicitly created to support Inter-organizational workflows and the exchange of complex medical data (think: EHRs, decision support systems). Most countries (note I'm not using the word: governments), and notably the USA, are struggling how to deal with these issues. For intra-hospital communiction there is little need to upgrade to v3.<br /><br />Note that Gartner did use the label "HL7 v3 messages" (and I'm sure this was done purposefully), and not "HL7 v3". HL7 v3 includes other interoperability paradigms: e-Documents (CDA), and HL7v3 based services. One of those interoperability paradigms may surface as being the main kind of implementation of HL7 v3. The US MU requirements certainly confirm this: it requires v3 eDocuments (CDA).<br /><br />As for the comment by Anonymous: "v2 is a pragmatic standard that matched what vendors were already exchanging" - in other words: the standard matched the day-to-day use-cases. When development of v3 was started it was based on v2 use-cases - the development methodology of the models was however brand new and rather theoretical. Now that v3 is being increasingly implemented the HL7 organization is retrofitting the v3 standard to deal with the implementation experiences (see http://hl7.me/sg for the HL7 v3 implementers group). In that sense some of the implementer pragmatism will have an effect on the standard - without losing the ability to do fine-grained modeling, which is simply a requirement if one wishes to support EHRs or decision support. One can't have it both ways.Rene Spronkhttp://www.ringholm.de/column/rs_last_en.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733369142232047956.post-88210206103720262472010-08-18T06:19:21.668+03:002010-08-18T06:19:21.668+03:00Eh - not really true. There is a reason V3 isn...Eh - not really true. There is a reason V3 isn't going anywhere. It's going to unsuccessful for all the reasons that V2 was successful. V2 was a pragmatic standard that matched what vendors were already exchanging. V3 is an overly complicated nightmare. It's poorly thoughtout, designed by committee and a beast to understand. The only people game to try it are governments and there are no happy success stories here - just huge budgets and very little to see in tangible results.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com