Hi Bert, A dv_coded text can carry a single defining_code but as many code mappings as you wish. This makes sense to me as I would always expect one code to be regarded as the original clinical source of truth, and other mappings to be regarded as secondary. All of these can be queried via AQL. The defining_code should be the one that is selected by the user.
I would strongly suggest that you use mappings for this purpose. I would also not bother with trying to place constraints via archetypes or templates. You are really not achieving much that cannot be otherwise simply documented or applied in software. Perhaps I'm still not understanding the requirement here? Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: i...@freshehr.com twitter: @ianmcnicoll Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 15 March 2017 at 21:31, Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl> wrote: > We are considering that Diego, the fact is that the customer wishes to > code the name -item two times. Both coding - systems are not easy to map > and the mapping cannot be calculated easily by software. > > So we need two Dv_coded_text's to carry the codes, and only one value to > carry the name. > > The problem with to Dv_coded_text's is however that it offers two value - > fields and that is not what we want. > > It is a pity that a Dv_coded_text only can carry one code. I don't > understand that restriction but we cannot solve that now, I hope this can > be considered in a RM change. > > So I think, we will have two Dv_coded_text's and from one having the value > put of in a template if that is possible. I look into that tomorrow. > > Best regards > Bert > > Op wo 15 mrt. 2017 12:20 schreef Diego Boscá <yamp...@gmail.com>: > >> What about having two sibling DV_CODED_TEXT nodes as alternatives on the >> parent? (or specialize two different ones from the single parent one). That >> would allow to arbitrarily define constraint binding as needed, and in data >> only one would be correct one >> >> 2017-03-15 12:13 GMT+01:00 Ian McNicoll <i...@freshehr.com>: >> >> Hi Bert >> >> This is correct. If you were to add those constraints in a specialised >> archetype, at run-time the submitted term in the defining_code attribute >> would have to come from one of the two terminologies specified. >> >> The constraint can define multiple potential terminologies but only one >> defining_code is allowed in the instance data. >> >> Ian >> On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 at 10:29, Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl> wrote: >> >> Dear readers, >> >> I have a problem and I want to ask your advise. >> >> The problem is that I want to use openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem_diagnosis.v1 >> which is in CKM. >> >> In that archetype is the item "Problem/Diagnosis name", which is of type >> DV_TEXT. We want to use it as DV_CODED_TEXT, because we want to add code to >> the entered name. >> >> In this situation where I work, the customer wants to use 2 different >> codes, one company crerated internal codelist, and ICD10. >> >> It seems easy to arrange in the archetype, I think I need to specialize >> it, because I want to add the constraint-bindings to give room for the >> codes. The archetype-editor from Ocean allows two constraint-bindings on >> the same node, like displayed below. But this seems wrong to me. >> >> In the reference model in the DV_CODED_TEXT is one CODE_PHRASE (1..1). >> And CODE_PHRASE has terminology_id and code_string also 1..1 >> >> So how will the construct below be interpreted following the specs? >> >> constraint_bindings = < >> ["ETDA"] = < >> items = < >> ["ac0001"] = <terminology:ETDA> >> > >> > >> ["ICD10"] = < >> items = < >> ["ac0001"] = <terminology:ICD10> >> > >> > >> > >> >> My second question, if you say this is impossible to add two terminology >> constraints to one data-item, which construct do you advise to make two >> terminology constraints_bindings available to one DV_CODED_TEXT (or maybe >> another datavalue-type)? >> >> Thanks for any help. >> >> Best regards >> Bert Verhees >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- >> clinical_lists.openehr.org >> >> -- >> Ian McNicoll >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- >> clinical_lists.openehr.org >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> [image: VeraTech for Health SL] <https://htmlsig.com/t/000001C268PZ> >> >> [image: Twitter] <https://htmlsig.com/t/000001C47QQH> [image: LinkedIn] >> <https://htmlsig.com/t/000001C4DPJG> [image: Maps] >> <https://htmlsig.com/t/000001BZTWS7> >> >> Diego Boscá Tomás / Senior developer >> diebo...@veratech.es >> yamp...@gmail.com >> >> VeraTech for Health SL >> +34 961071863 <+34%20961%2007%2018%2063> / +34 627015023 >> <+34%20627%2001%2050%2023> >> www.veratech.es >> >> Su dirección de correo electrónico junto a sus datos personales forman >> parte de un fichero titularidad de VeraTech for Health SL (CIF B98309511) >> cuya finalidad es la de mantener el contacto con usted. Conforme a La Ley >> Orgánica 15/1999, usted puede ejercitar sus derechos de acceso, >> rectificación, cancelación y, en su caso oposición, enviando una solicitud >> por escrito a verat...@veratech.es. >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- >> clinical_lists.openehr.org > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- > clinical_lists.openehr.org >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
