Hi All I think you are right. As a concept relevant to clinical practice it is generally persistent and would appear in a foundation information somewhere. Traditionally this has been an administrative concept but things have developed from there. Cheers, Sam
From: openEHR-clinical <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Bakke, Silje Ljosland via openEHR-clinical Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2019 5:40 PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions <[email protected]> Cc: Bakke, Silje Ljosland <[email protected]> Subject: Class of archetype 'Gender' Hi everyone, On revisiting the archetype CLUSTER.gender, we’ve discussed changing the class of the archetype to EVALUATION. The reasoning behind this is that the original use cases we thought would be relevant for this archetype, such as nesting it within a lab result or an interpreter request, aren’t really relevant anymore. We now believe the archetype is more useful in a persistent composition. Are there any use cases we haven’t thought of, where it’s necessary to nest this archetype within ENTRY archetypes? Kind regards, Silje Ljosland Bakke Information Architect, RN Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes Nasjonal IKT HF, Norway Tel. +47 40203298 Web: http://arketyper.no<http://arketyper.no/> / Twitter: @arketyper_no<https://twitter.com/arketyper_no>
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
