Hello! Agree to practical solutions, and to not change but support what is going on in medicine.
Is this a "general purpose" diagnosis archetype or is there any limit at least to some area? The discussion will be much easier and to the point if there is a usecase. Diagnosis is very different in places and I do not see a simple "one fits all" archetype soon. A "general purpose" diagnosis archetype in all bloom will not provide detailed interoperability. It will only be able to serve as search target, and readers will have to parse the content similar to free text. The Austrian hospital discharge summaries have very few and simple fields in the diagnosis part, some basic diagnostic codes and mostly free text. This made everybody happy for discharge management. However this will not support a group that is in the middel of developing a diagnosis. Therefore: What is your usecase? Greetings, Stefan Sauermann Program Director Biomedical Engineering Sciences (Master) University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien Hoechstaedtplatz 5, 1200 Vienna, Austria P: +43 1 333 40 77 - 988 M: +43 664 6192555 E: stefan.sauermann at technikum-wien.at I: www.technikum-wien.at/mbe I: www.technikum-wien.at/ibmt I: www.healthy-interoperability.at Am 20.08.2012 15:14, schrieb Stef Verlinden: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
