Dear all, I'm trying to understand the problem.
Apart from archetype tools problems, etc, there is the general notion of archetypes/templates and how they are used in real life situations. Re-use of archetype fragments, the terminology Boundary problem. Archetypes express maximally what can be recorded about a topic. Templates express what in a specific situation will be considered recordable. Archetypes will consist of parts that will be reused in other archetypes. Several archetypes will have nested components. (reusable sub-archetypes) Am I correct to think that these subarchetypes, that can be re-used in archetypes, are in CEN terms General Purpose Information Components (GPICS)? The same fractal approach holds for Templates as reusable information or presentation fragments/patterns. But there there is no CEN European standard for GPICS. Thinking about it for some time. I think that archetypes can be fractal. There are reusable parts of any archetype that for the sake of consistency needs to be reused. Internal or external codelist must be propagated, etc. In principle I can not think of any level of the Reference Model where this can not happen. So at all levels of the document hierarchy one might find reusable constructs. Perhaps in reality reusability in 'structural' components like Composition and Section is less common or preferable. Folders, Entries, Clusters and Elements will have to be reusable and specialisable. In this vein and triggered by the discussion. As Evaluation Archetype: How is handled that there is an intention to use medication in general as a plan, as opposed to surgical treatment? How is handled an intention to use a specific general type of medication. I.e. treat asthma with steroids? Idem when a specific medicine is used? And the same in an Instruction Archetype. In other words how do we deal with Generals and Particulars in archetypes? DO we have special types of archetypes to make this distinction? Or do we rely on the coding system functionality used in archetypes? Or do we have in each archetype a field indicating what is meant" Particular, a (more) specific instance, or a General? This is our version of the "Terminology Boundary Problem". How is this handled? What are the written guidelines? Gerard -- <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 10-sep-2007, at 4:20, Sam Heard wrote: > Thanks John > > We do differentiate from plans in a very general sense - such as a > recommendation to commence a drug - from an instruction. We would > not anticipate that the recommendation would include the fine grain > details - this is better recorded as a planned medication. We > understand that this is a grey zone but it is not problematic from > a clinical point of view - ie clinicians are happy to make > recommendations that are not instructions - and instructions that > are not yet activated. > > I do not believe the approach you are suggesting is required or > adds clarity but I understand your literal approach. It will be > interesting to see what others feel...Sam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20070910/047491b6/attachment.html>
