I'm not sure we would like to continue todays practice, when the surgeon is 
making the operative note after the operation is over. As a general rule, data 
should be captured as they are produced, to avoid the extra work afterwards. 
(And as we know, that gives us poorer data quality and delay). So a solution 
that captures data as the surgery is being performed, will be very welcomed! 
The source of this will be from manual input from personel attending the 
operation, maybe from medical devices or from a third-party system (such as a 
charting system) in a type of combination of them all. Therefore the archetypes 
should be constructed to handle this.

Vebjørn

PS: I didn't know attachments were not allowed here, my mistake. Incubator? 
Yes, please ☺

Fra: openEHR-clinical [mailto:[email protected]] På 
vegne av Ian McNicoll
Sendt: 16. februar 2016 10:12
Til: For openEHR clinical discussions
Emne: Re: Procedure archetype for operative notes

Hi Anca, Antje

I also agree about recording anaesthesia separately, especially if the template 
is being used in an operational system.

The various sub-steps could be regarded as their own ACTION/ OBSERVATIONS etc 
but sometimes this just makes the modelling too complicated. If the 
documentation is an operative note made by a surgeon after the procedure, 
he/she is essentially making a summary report in hindsight, rather than 
documenting the steps as he/she goes along. Definitely an area to explore 
further.

@Vebjørn - good suggestion. It is difficult to discuss these areas without 
clear examples. For policy reasons, this list does not accept attachments 
(under discussion). We could setup an Incubator on the international CKM and 
upload resources there. If people want to email mindmaps etc directly, I am 
happy to upload them to CKM.

Ian


Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

[https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0BzLo3mNUvbAjT2R5Sm1DdFZYTU0&export=download]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 16 February 2016 at 08:45, 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi everyone,

Anca, I agree with you. I think it would be better to have an own procedure 
action archetype for anesthesia. There are some more of these actions which can 
be done during a surgery, e.g. X-Ray/imaging help, blood arrest, pre-operative 
examination – I think it is not valid to model these concepts as CLUSTER 
because these are own ACTIONS, right? Unfortunately, it is not possible to add 
these ‘special methods’-archetypes into the details-slot of the surgery 
procedure archetype then (e.g. within a template) – so you can’t really 
represent that these actions may be a part of the surgery action.
How would be the approach to represent something like sub-actions?


Antje Wulff

Peter L. Reichertz Institut für Medizinische Informatik
Technische Universität Braunschweig und
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover
Mühlenpfordtstraße 23
D-38106 Braunschweig

Anca Heyd

Hi everybody.

I get involved a little late in this discussion, sorry for this but I did not 
know obout this forum.

The point is, we have already worked a lot on surgery and how to model the 
whole process.

We have implemented planning of surgery already and we did it by modelling a 
template for decision for surgery.

Like you we used the procedure INSTRUCTION archetype and it seems to work well. 
There is only one difference.

We decided to have one procedure instruction for the surgery an d one for the 
anesthesia. This because you sometimes you need surgery without anesthesia or 
anesthesia without surgery and we think that these to are so different that I 
makes sense to describe them as own procedure.

Than we added a lot of Clusters with details like information about priority 
details, special needs for surgery, plan for anesthesia etc.

That was the planning.

We are now proceeding to performing and documenting the procedure and we 
actually also thought of using the action care steps for registration of the 
different times/states during an operation.

Ian could you tell a little bit more about why do you think this would not be a 
good idea?



Ha en strålende dag
[cid:[email protected]]
Anca
Mobil +47 472 63 241<tel:%2B47%C2%A0472%2063%C2%A0241>

Fra: openEHR-clinical 
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
 På vegne av Ian McNicoll
Sendt: mandag 15. februar 2016 18.07
Til: For openEHR clinical discussions 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Emne: Re: Procedure archetype for operative notes

Hi Birger,

Sorry for the delay in responding.

I suspect this is one of the situations where it feels like you have found a 
consistentpattern i.e. 'surgical times' but where each procedure and speciality 
may have very different ideas about exactly which times are significant. I had 
a similar experience when modelling metastatic cancer spread, where there 
initially seems to be a lot of commonality but you quickly get into a tangle 
with exceptions and redundant elements.

My inclination would be to create a generic cluster for operative details, 
including the common 'surgical times' but expect to have to 'fork' this 
frequently in the way that the physical examination archetypes are now modelled 
- i.e aim for generic patterns, rathe than true inheritance.

I don't think these sub-events really qualify as Care steps.  The only 
exception might be pre-op and post-op procedures/summary which perhaps merit 
their own archetypes but for now I would probably just include these within the 
operative details CLUSTER archetype.

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859<tel:%2B44%20%280%29775%20209%207859>
office +44 (0)1536 414994<tel:%2B44%20%280%291536%20414994>
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
twitter: @ianmcnicoll
[Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 9 February 2016 at 12:15, 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Thanks for sharing your ideas on modelling an operative report. I decided to 
use the procedure archetype in the way Ian described.  Now I am thinking about 
how to integrate the different surgery steps, e.g. pre-operative preparation of 
the room/of the patient, incision to closure, post-operative preparation... for 
each step there is a specific date/time which has to be represented within  an 
archetype. Do you think it might be possible to use the PATHWAY  within the 
ACTION archetypes?
The first idea was to create a CLUSTER archetype called 'surgical times' in 
which each surgery step is represented by one data element (by using the data 
type date/time) but it does not feel very comfortable to me.
Thanks for your help
Regards,
Antje

Birger Haarbrandt

Hi all,

I think it would be a good idea to have an example template. It might serve as 
a good starting point and reference model (not to be confused with the openEHR 
Reference Model :). However, our current effort is to create a template that 
mimics two surgery management systems at Hannover Medical School for the 
purpose of data integration. Therefore, the results might need some additional 
editing to become a good and generic example.

Cheers,

Birger
Jakob Mathiszig-Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 
hat am 4. Februar 2016 um 14:50 geschrieben:

It's the WHO safe surgery check list: 
http://www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery/checklist/en/
The completed version (printed if electronically) gets filed as part of the 
operative record in the theaters i've worked in
Ian McNicoll<mailto:[email protected]>
04 February 2016 13:43
Hi Jakob

Can you point us to the WHO checklists you had in mind ? It is worth noting 
that checklists are often orthogonal to operational data capture.

I would be thinking in terms of operative note as a composition , using the 
procedure archetype with device and detailed method in the slot.

To maximise reuse I would probably put specimen inside the relevant lab request 
archetype and similarly record meds using a medication order archetype. 
Prepping diagnosis would use the problem-diagnosis archetype.

Is it worth working this up as an exemplar template to put up on CKM?

Ian
_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Jakob Mathiszig-Lee<mailto:[email protected]>
04 February 2016 10:47
Speaking as an anaesthetist there's enough going on on an anaesthetic chart to 
warrant its own archetype imo.

Specimens, sets used and local anaesthetic infiltrated by the surgeon are 
generally recorded in the op note section of an operative booklet. I suspect 
specimens don't have to be included if they'd be recorded by virtue of 
electronic requesting.

One other thing is to work out where the WHO checklists fits in around the op 
note


On 4 Feb 2016, at 10:28, 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Hi everyone,



We’re trying to model an operative note document - therefore we used the 
procedure archetype openEHR-EHR-ACTION.procedure.v1 and specialised it by 
adding other archetypes into the procedure details slot. Within the description 
of the procedure archetype it says

'Additional structured and detailed information about the procedure can be 
captured using purpose-specific archetypes inserted into the 'Procedure detail' 
slot'

but

'this archetype will be used to record only what was done during the procedure. 
Separate archetypes will be used to record the other required components of the 
Operation Report'.

I am a bit confused - we added something like specimens taken, devices, 
medication during surgery. Do you think it is valid to add these archetypes 
into the slot procedure details?

And what about elements like preoperative diagnosis, risks and anesthesia? I 
think these are detailed information for the surgery but they do not belong to 
the surgery itself - so they shouldn't be added.

What do you think?





Thanks for your help and ideas.





Kind regards

Antje



Antje Wulff



Peter L. Reichertz Institut für Medizinische Informatik

Technische Universität Braunschweig und

Medizinische Hochschule Hannover

Mühlenpfordtstraße 23

D-38106 Braunschweig


_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

_______________________________________________

openEHR-clinical mailing list

[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
04 February 2016 10:26

Hi everyone,



We’re trying to model an operative note document - therefore we used the 
procedure archetype openEHR-EHR-ACTION.procedure.v1 and specialised it by 
adding other archetypes into the procedure details slot. Within the description 
of the procedure archetype it says

'Additional structured and detailed information about the procedure can be 
captured using purpose-specific archetypes inserted into the 'Procedure detail' 
slot'

but

'this archetype will be used to record only what was done during the procedure. 
Separate archetypes will be used to record the other required components of the 
Operation Report'.

I am a bit confused - we added something like specimens taken, devices, 
medication during surgery. Do you think it is valid to add these archetypes 
into the slot procedure details?

And what about elements like preoperative diagnosis, risks and anesthesia? I 
think these are detailed information for the surgery but they do not belong to 
the surgery itself - so they shouldn't be added.

What do you think?





Thanks for your help and ideas.





Kind regards

Antje



Antje Wulff



Peter L. Reichertz Institut für Medizinische Informatik

Technische Universität Braunschweig und

Medizinische Hochschule Hannover

Mühlenpfordtstraße 23

D-38106 Braunschweig


_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

--
Sent from 
Postbox<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>


_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org


_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

Reply via email to