It is true that "CDA which requires *all* information to be in human-readable". We had a case where we naively felt that it might be useful to display the "same" information in a different way. In the laboratory report many will very likely code the single lab test using LOINC, or SNOMED, or both, in CDA level 3. The human user will not be interested in this code, so it does not go to the screen. On the screen the descriptive text is displayed, out of the LOINC database. Things get complicated when - there is no LOINC / SNOMED Code available, because the test is new and not coded yet - there is a LOINC Code but there is no translation of the decriptive text available. - you optionally want to add the laboratories own old and proprietary code and description, just machine-readable, so that readers can still match the results to older existing reports and generate trends. There might be similar cases where you want to hide some of the more machine-readable parts of the information from the user, and want to express a very clear relation between the machine-readable part and the human readable part. Would that be an argument for something in the line of "display" / or "non -display" things in an archetype? (You might call it differently). See you, Stefan Sauermann
_____ Von: openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org] Im Auftrag von Thilo Schuler Gesendet: Montag, 18. August 2008 22:17 An: For openEHR technical discussions Cc: openEHR-Clinical Betreff: Re: Differential display Hi everybody I know CDA which requires *all* information to be in human-readable, textual form (Level 1). Optionally there can be references to machine-readable entries (Level 3). This design makes sure no information is disclosed from a clinician that views the document only with as simple XSLT-transformed XHTML. I must admit I didn't quite understand the use case. <snip> This does mimic the CDA approach but does have the added benefit that the displayed information can be structured as well (a requirement from our customers who want to mix the textural content and structured medication orders (ie not duplicate these in the textural display). <snip> Maybe you could explain it a bit further. But in general I feel - probably similar to Ian and Gerard - it is not a good idea to bring view-related stuff into an archetype. Thus, I wouldn't call it "display" and "non-display". However, think the there is a gowing need to have a possibility to easily use archetypes together with HL7 CDA. As Stefan also pointed out, many national ehealth programs have opted to use this part of HL7v3! This is a chance for openEHR as it is way ahead of the HL7 template initiative with respect to clinician involvement, which is crucial. So maybe, we could discuss whether to create an CDA-compatibility SECTION archetype with a Level1 and a Level3 section. Cheers, Thilo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080819/a5f63496/attachment.html>
