See below GF
-- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, MD Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252544896 M: +31 620347088 E: gfrer at luna.nl Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Ian McNicoll wrote: > There is no problem in doing the modelling of the Patient Mandate > using archetypes and templates but within OpenEHR, this class of > data is seen as being separate, like metadata, to the main content > of each archetype. Think of it like the Contributor,composition > dates etc. which are elements automatically attached to the > contribution to the EHR by the reference model. Show me at the Archetype. I think that the Patient Mandate is archetypable, but will In the end be a Template. I will not be surprised that in the long run it will be a separate Patient Mandate Model Archetype that will be further constrained in the Template tool. > > > The main difficulty is not modelling the requirements but in > establishing the 'maximal dataset' of all possible approaches to > patient confidentiality and security. An archetype approach would > have to be as inclusive as possible a number of potential > overlapping ideas. Could become very tricky!! That is why part 4 of EN13606 has one matrix that will cover 95% os most use cases. > > > If anyone is interested in this area, I have a contact via my Msc > Informatics course who was looking at varying privacy legislation as > part of her final year project in the context of mutli-national > occupational health records. She currently works for Shell and is/ > was based in the Netherlands. I'm very much interested > > > Ian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20071217/4202f2b1/attachment.html>
