Everything documented in an EHR is based on human interpretation. Therefor human interpretation is not a discriminator when we want to define the specialisations of an Entry. And neither is the fact whether something is located in time. An neither is the fact whether it applies to the patient as a whole or part of it.
It is my conclusion that in openEHR for sometime now the wrong definitions are used. And thereby archetypes get the wrong semantic annotations. Gerard Freriks EN13606 Association p/a Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands M: +31 620347088 E: gerard.freriks at EN13606.org W: http:www.en13606.org Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gfrer at luna.nl On 21 Jun 2012, at 10:42, Ian McNicoll wrote: > Hi Grahame, > > I agree that all real-world Observations contain some element of human > interpretation. I think this is well understood and that the break > point is whether that interpretation applies to the test or to the > patient as a whole, when in openEHR terms it becomes an Evaluation, > which equates pretty closely to the AORTIS definition of synthesis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120621/dc6ae339/attachment.html>
