Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Norwegian national governance of archetypes
Silje Ljosland Bakke RN
Information architect, National ICT Norway
Norwegian p...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Poster on the Norwegian national goverance of archetypes

618 views

Published on

Poster from Medinfo 2015, in Sao Paulo, Brazil

Published in: Data & Analytics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Poster on the Norwegian national goverance of archetypes

  1. 1. Norwegian national governance of archetypes Silje Ljosland Bakke RN Information architect, National ICT Norway Norwegian public hospital system The Norwegian public hospital system consists of four Regional Health Authorities (RHAs), with a total of 24 Hospital Trusts, each of which have one or more hospitals. 100% of the hospitals have adopted EHRs. Two vendors dominate the hospital EHR market; Siemens (Central Norway) and DIPS (the three remaining regions). One common health trust, National ICT (Norwegian: “Nasjonal IKT”), acts as a strategic coordinating unit for the hospital sector’s common ICT commitments. openEHR in Norway As of yet, only Oslo University Hospital is using an openEHR based system in a production environment. DIPS is finalising its implementation of openEHR, and their solution is being tested in hospitals around the country. Several other vendors are either in the process of or are looking into implementing openEHR as part of their products. National ICT has developed and deployed a scheme for the national governance of archetypes. The goals of the governance scheme is ensuring a high quality of archetypes as well as enabling semantic interoperability between systems through the use of identical archetypes. The governance scheme is heavily dependent on a common tool for both collaborative development and sharing of archetypes and templates. For this purpose, National ICT has chosen the Clinical Knowledge Manager (CKM) from Ocean Informatics. The governance model The governance model has three main phases; development, review and approval. Development Development of archetypes is based on a so-called “do-ocracy”, where those who actually spend time and resources doing something decide what gets done and in which fashion. Whoever wants to influence decisions can do so, but only by participating actively in the development process. This has the advantage that as long as someone is willing to spend the resources to do something, it will get done whether or not anyone else is interested in participating. To ensure a real possibility of participation in new initiatives, this model also requires a very open and transparent development process, something the CKM does very well. The actual archetype development is done in a geographically distributed manner, using the CKM as a collaborative tool. Requirements are defined by the originating initiative, alternatively in collaboration with vendors and other participants. Re-use of archetypes already developed internationally is encouraged, but these must be translated into Norwegian and then put through the same review process as locally developed archetypes no matter their approval status at their origin. During this process, the local initiatives can get archetype design assistance from their Regional Resource Group. Review When a development initiative is satisfied with a developed archetype, they can submit it for review. The National Editorial Committee will then initiate a review of the archetype in question, and define the requirements of the review, the most important being which professions and specialties should be represented among the reviewers. The Regional Resource Groups in each of the four regions then recruit suitable reviewers, and the archetype is iteratively reviewed and improved until there is consensus among the reviewers that the archetype is acceptable for clinical use. Approval Once there is consensus on an archetype among the reviewers, the National Editorial Committee assesses the quality of the review, using parameters such as number of reviewers, geographical and professional spread of reviewers, and if any other stated requirements for the review are met. If the review is considered to be of acceptable quality, the archetype is approved for clinical use. Once approved, the archetype is given a new status “Published” in the CKM, which marks it as stable and suitable for actual clinical use. Deployment The governance model was formally approved in October 2013, and the governance model including online tools at http://arketyper.no were deployed in January 2014. The National Editorial Committee was formed with members from each of the four RHAs as well as from the Directorate of Health. The National Design Committee is temporarily considered to be part of the Editorial Committee. Two full time positions were created to coordinate the work of the Editorial Committee. As of August 2015, only the South-Eastern RHA has been able to get a Regional Resource Group up and running. For the remaining four RHAs, the coordinators for the Editorial Committee are filling this gap until the regional groups can be put in place. Experiences & results The first year of operation was mainly spent getting the governance structure up and running, including the recruitment of large numbers of clinicians for review participation. Only 6 archetypes were published during 2014, with the total number rising to 20 by August 2015. All but one are translations of archetypes adopted from the international openEHR.org CKM (http://openehr.org/ckm). Success factors The greatest success factor identified is the participation of clinicians. The limiting factor that led to the approval of only 6 archetypes during 2014 were the lack of clinicians for review participation. Once this number reached a certain critical level (around 150-200), the rate of review increased significantly, and 5 of the 6 archetypes were published in December 2014. Other major success factors are:  good tooling; not having to rely on distributing documents with UML diagrams for clinician review  resourcing for coordinators to do the practical work, and for training clinicians and others  collaboration with the sizable international community, which saves a lot of development and review time by providing both a large number of models as well as experienced modellers. Pitfalls Translation has proved to be tougher than anticipated, since not many clinicians are bilingually trained in their clinical professions. Project management practices not taking into account time for designing and reviewing information models has also been a challenge, leading to many models not being approved in time for the appropriate project milestone. As mentioned, regional resource groups have been hard to get going, which means the work of recruiting clinicians and supporting initiatives has fallen on the coordinators and regional representatives. National ICT National Editorial Committee National Design Committee  Define review requirements  Approve reviews National coordinators  Edit archetypes  Organise reviews  Administer arketyper.no  Make sure archetypes are technically sound  Conformity w/ other standards/formalisms Regional representatives Regional resource groups Clinicians  Participate in reviews  Start local initiatives  Represent the RHAs in the Editorial Committee  Recruit clinicians  Support local initiatives Vendors  Implement archetypes in software  Supplement requirements What are archetypes?  Archetypes are formalised information models based on the openEHR specification  An archetype is a collection of information ele- ments relating to a single clinical concept  Archetypes are defined by domain experts, and exist independently of vendors and solutions  Archetypes are made to be maximum datasets, and can be grown over time  Archetypes are not complete data sets, user interfaces or terminologies

×