I agree fully. This implies that on the fly small archetypes need to be used to store one or more aspects.
Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 26 Jun 2018, at 18:10, Dr Evelyn Hovenga <ehove...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Bert nurses think like you, they need to view every patient within the > context of the person's response to their complaint, injury, procedures > performed or treatments provide and the person's individual social network, > family commitments, lifestyle, home and workplace environments, location > exposures (current and/or past) etc. We should be able to collect and store > information about these aspects in lifelong EHRs. > > Evelyn > > -----Original Message----- > From: openEHR-clinical <openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> On Behalf > Of Bert Verhees > Sent: Wednesday, 27 June 2018 12:17 AM > To: Stefan Sauermann <sauerm...@technikum-wien.at>; For openEHR clinical > discussions <openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org> > Subject: Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts > > On 26-06-18 14:35, Stefan Sauermann wrote: >> Dear Bert, all! >> Sorry if this consumes excess bandwith, feel free to delete. >> >> The case you describe clearly provides a sound reason why "generic >> archetypes will remain necessary". >> I agree completely. This use case must always be satisfied. >> It does not include automated processing at the receiving end. The >> receiving party must read the information and decide what to do, using >> their human brain cells, no 100% reliable computer aided decision >> support (as in medical devices). >> >> In this use case, I see no difference between: >> - transmitting information within a "generic archetype" >> - transmitting the same information in unstructured free text. >> >> Both technologies provide a useful solution for the use case. >> - So (in my humble view) this specific use case does not demand a >> "generic archetype". In other words, it needs no archetype at all. > Just a few days ago I heard about Google scanning a great number of files of > all kind and format, searching for medical information. The results were > quite remarkable. > > https://www.healthdatamanagement.com/articles/google-continues-work-to-use-machines-for-health-analytics > > But unstructured information is not what I am aiming for. > > There will be some semantics. > A clinician can indicate that data are from the user story, or from the > observation, so, that is already some information. > While talking with the patient, the doctor can measure heartbeat, > bloodpressure, saturation, temperature, bloodsugar, even almost without > touching de patient. It will be more soon. > Development goes so fast. > And patients can also measure data at home, or at work, or wherever. > Context is also location, patient personal data, time of the day, jet-lag, > season of the year, weather conditions, other medical conditions, alcohol > consumption, social status > > Most of these data are not regarded as relevant in the actual medical > condition. So archetypes do not have items for this. > > There are two kind of medical data. > a) Medical data which are relevant in the context of a specific medical > condition. > b) Medical data of which the relevancy is not yet known in the context of a > medical condition, or another medical condition, which maybe is also not > known at the moment. > > The data of the second kind are also medical data, so why not store them? > > Karsten yesterday said, a person at the doctor should be more then a medical > complaint. I agree with that. But the current medical practice is not like > that. > You go to the doctor with a medical complaint, and you talk about that, the > doctor does research in that context, and the software finds some archetypes > which fit to that. > > But the person should be seen as more then a medical complaint, but as a > complex of conditions and lifestyle. > We need generic archetypes which can store machine generated datasets to > store information about the whole person, instead of only the medical > condition which is subject of conversation. > > I believe I am the only person in this list who thinks like that. But that > does not matter. > > Have a nice day > Bert > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
