On 27/06/2018 08:35, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
Hi Pablo!
I’ll try to answer your question about how clinical modellers solve
this problem. Have a look at the ACTION.medication archetype
(http://openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.123). This archetype has
11 separate steps for the ACTIVE state. In each medication management
context, one or more of these will be relevant, and often in a way or
order that’s not possible to predict. We therefore “solve” the problem
by leaving it to the business logic of the application. This may be
frustrating for the implementers (I don’t know, is it?), but it makes
our work manageable. Designing ACTION archetypes is complex in the
first place, and I’m not sure we’d get any published if we needed to
map out all possible combinations and orders of pathway steps too.
Hi all,
I'm testing the AE for a new workshop, and designed a simple state
machine for and order so my students can use it as basic for more
complex state machines.
I have: NEW (maps to ISM PLANNED), ASSIGNED (maps to ISM PLANNED),
STARTED (maps to ISM ACTIVE) and FINISHED (maps to ISM COMPLETED).
What the AE is not allowing is to specify the
ISM_TRANSITION.transition : DV_CODED_TEXT.
The problem is if I have two states mapped to ASSIGNED,
this is not a legal thing to do! If Assigned is a 'careflow step', its
execution in the real world has to result in the ISM state machine being
advanced to one defined state.
So there is a problem from the outset with this discussion...
- thomas
_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
