Thomas, As well as a textual reason, there may be a more generic requirement to flag 'not thought suitable for decision support or secondary uses', so that the result (or entry) is ignored by machine processing. The standard practice in UK GP systems, where a Read coded item proves to be unreliable, is to 'delete' the original and recreate it as a Text only uncoded item.
This is a fascinating discussion!! It raises all sorts of issues in my head. In particular, Stef he suggests that without reliable quality/trust markers, there will be limitations to the vision of the single homogenous EHR. Whilst In principle, I think he is correct, I think such limitations are inevitable and as with others who have commented, feel that the cost and effort of maintaining a *meaningful* quality marker system would far outweigh the benefit. Ian -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: 13 July 2007 09:55 To: For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: Re: Data quality questions/ proposal Colin Sutton wrote: > I suggest it would be better to concentrate first on modelling the > real world - implement features that clinicians already record. to be sure, this has been the focus of openEHR to date, with a lot of input from various specialties including pathology lab to ensure we have good coverage. > > Does anyone record beliefs now? > > It would be appropriate to record a suspicion that a device is not > trustworthy, with the communication to whoever maintains it, with the > response later and the retrospective amendment of measurement value or > quality. Is the eHR ready to handle that? yes, you can commit a new version of a result, and include as the reason 'error due to defective device' or whatever it may be. - thomas beale _______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
