I agree that we need a practical solution and that we can't change (at least not overnight) what has been going on for ages.
As an intermediate solution, it would be great if it is possible to see on which facts a diagnosis is based (or a differential diagnose is rejected) and which protocol is used in order to get to that diagnosis. As we discussed some time ago, a diagnoses (for example 'rheumatoid arthitis') isn't a 'hard' diagnosis. Differerent hospitals/ groups of doctors/ regions/ etc. use different protocols containing different criteria to come to the diagnosis RA. So one RA diagnosis can't be directly compared to another RA diagnosis unless they're based on the same criteria. Cheers, Stef Op 19 aug. 2012, om 23:52 heeft Thomas Beale het volgende geschreven: > > In a way, having a 'diagnosis' archetype (whatever it is today, and whatever > it evolves into) does do away with trying to define diagnosis - by providing > its own extensional definition of data points that some clinical modellers > have agreed are useful to collect. The 'meaning' of the word 'diagnosis' may > continue to be debated forever, it won't affect anything material. I would > call this a good example of practical interoperability. > > - thomas > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
