|
|
Special Topic: eHealth 2009
C. Rinner (1), S. Janzek-Hawlat (1), S. Sibinovic (1), G. Duftschmid (1)
(1) Section of Medical Information and Retrieval Systems, Core Unit for Medical Statistics and Informatics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Objectives: The goal of this article is to examine whether W3C XML Schema provides a practicable solution for the semantic validation of standard-based electronic health record (EHR) documents. With semantic validation we mean that the EHR documents are checked for conformance with the underlying archetypes and reference model. Methods: We describe an approach that allows XML Schemas to be derived from archetypes based on a specific naming convention. The archetype constraints are augmented with additional components of the reference model within the XML Schema representation. A copy of the EHR document that is transformed according to the before-mentioned naming convention is used for the actual validation against the XML Schema. Results: We tested our approach by semantically validating EHR documents conformant to three different ISO/EN 13606 archetypes respective to three sections of the CDA implementation guide “Continuity of Care Document (CCD)” and an implementation guide for diabetes therapy data. We further developed a tool to automate the different steps of our semantic validation approach. Conclusions: For two particular kinds of archetype prescriptions, individual transformations are required for the corresponding EHR documents. Otherwise, a fully generic validation is possible. In general, we consider W3C XML Schema as a practicable solution for the semantic validation of standard-based EHR documents.
Medical Records, reference standards, computerized medical records system
| 1. | ||
|
Y. Mori1, T. Igarashi1, R. Haraguchi2, K. Nakazawa2 Methods of Information in Medicine 2007 46 6: 694-699 |
||
| 2. | ||
|
S. Meystre, Managing Editor for the IMIA Yearbook Section on Patient Records IMIA Yearbook 2007 2007 2 1: 47-48 |
||
| 3. | ||
|
A. L. Rector Methods of Information in Medicine 1999 38 4: 239-252 |
||