title: Validating archetypes for the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Numerous information models for electronic health records, such as openEHR archetypes are available. The quality of such clinical models is important to guarantee standardised semantics and to facilitate their interoperability. However, validation aspects are not regarded sufficiently yet. The objective of this report is to investigate the feasibility of archetype development and its community-based validation process, presuming that this review process is a practical way to ensure high-quality information models amending the formal reference model definitions.
  
  
  METHODS
  A standard archetype development approach was applied on a case set of three clinical tests for multiple sclerosis assessment: After an analysis of the tests, the obtained data elements were organised and structured. The appropriate archetype class was selected and the data elements were implemented in an iterative refinement process. Clinical and information modelling experts validated the models in a structured review process.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Four new archetypes were developed and publicly deployed in the openEHR Clinical Knowledge Manager, an online platform provided by the openEHR Foundation. Afterwards, these four archetypes were validated by domain experts in a team review. The review was a formalised process, organised in the Clinical Knowledge Manager. Both, development and review process turned out to be time-consuming tasks, mostly due to difficult selection processes between alternative modelling approaches. The archetype review was a straightforward team process with the goal to validate archetypes pragmatically.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The quality of medical information models is crucial to guarantee standardised semantic representation in order to improve interoperability. The validation process is a practical way to better harmonise models that diverge due to necessary flexibility left open by the underlying formal reference model definitions.This case study provides evidence that both community- and tool-enabled review processes, structured in the Clinical Knowledge Manager, ensure archetype quality. It offers a pragmatic but feasible way to reduce variation in the representation of clinical information models towards a more unified and interoperable model.
authors.affiliation: Center for Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str, 26, 79104 Freiburg, Germany. michael.braun@uniklinik-freiburg.de.
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Braun
authors.forename: Alexander Ulrich
authors.initials: AU
authors.lastname: Brandt
authors.forename: Stefan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Schulz
authors.forename: Martin
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Boeker
mesh_terms: D057286:Electronic Health Records; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D006801:Humans; D008491:Medical Informatics Applications; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D009103:Multiple Sclerosis / Q000175:diagnosis*
references.citation: Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;169:789-93
references.pmid: 21893855
references.citation: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008 Oct 27;8 Suppl 1:S7
references.pmid: 19007444
references.citation: Stud Health Technol Inform. 2005;116:971-6
references.pmid: 16160384
references.citation: J Biomed Inform. 2013 Apr;46(2):304-17
references.pmid: 23246613
references.citation: Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 1):760-4
references.pmid: 17911819
references.citation: Appl Clin Inform. 2012 Jul 11;3(3):276-89
references.pmid: 23620720
references.citation: Health Inf Manag. 2009;38(2):7-17
references.pmid: 19546483
references.citation: Methods Inf Med. 2007;46(3):332-43
references.pmid: 17492120
references.citation: Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;180:393-7
references.pmid: 22874219
references.citation: Int J Med Inform. 2009 Aug;78(8):521-31
references.pmid: 19359214
references.citation: Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;151:115-32
references.pmid: 20407156
references.citation: Methods Inf Med. 2009;48(1):45-54
references.pmid: 19151883
references.citation: Int J Med Inform. 2011 Mar;80(3):205-26
references.pmid: 21131230
references.citation: Int J Med Inform. 2007 Dec;76 Suppl 3:S334-41
references.pmid: 17392019
references.citation: Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;160(Pt 2):1000-4
references.pmid: 20841834
references.citation: Appl Clin Inform. 2012 Jul 06;3(3):258-75
references.pmid: 23646075
references.citation: Methods Inf Med. 2015;54(1):45-9
references.pmid: 24889026
references.citation: Healthc Inform Res. 2010 Dec;16(4):201-14
references.pmid: 21818440
references.citation: J Biomed Inform. 2011 Aug;44(4):688-99
references.pmid: 21440086
references.citation: Mult Scler. 1999 Aug;5(4):244-50
references.pmid: 10467383
references.citation: Methods Inf Med. 2009;48(2):162-9
references.pmid: 19283314
references.citation: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011 Oct 12;11:60
references.pmid: 21992670
references.citation: Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;150:125-9
references.pmid: 19745281
references.citation: Form Ontol Inf Syst. 2004;2004:185-195
references.pmid: 25745641
references.citation: Am J Occup Ther. 1985 Jun;39(6):386-91
references.pmid: 3160243
references.citation: Health Inf Manag. 2008;37(1):38-9
references.pmid: 18245863