I would call my contribution as a question to the bones, end to name what we call skeletons in the closet or elephants in the room. I was attracted to openEhR in last century when attending a HL7 WGM in 2007 in San Diego. By that time I was so convinced that CDA would solve my problems. Then I met Sam Heard and that meeting changed my whole picture. Since that I am a fiercely openEHR advocate. When talking about documents though, there are too many standards to describe them, and I really hate waste of time calling differents names for the same thing. Snomed ct has a hierarchy describing records artifacts, why don’t we simply adopt them? Hope we can have a discussion on convergence and harmonization. I am all ears to listen to other’s opinion
Jussara Rötzsch Enviado do meu iPhone Em 5 de jun de 2019, à(s) 12:15, Dileep V S <dil...@healthelife.in> escreveu: > Dear Gerard, > > Thanks for your response. Your point of a composition being designed to > record a complete encounter is worth another discussion. > > I personally feel that it is one way of implementing your CDR, but there > could be other equally effective approaches that work better in other > situations. For example in the CDR service component of our platform > (EHR.Network), we have gone with generic reusable templates such as > complaints, diagnosis, medication summary, medication order etc. The > application can compose the complete schema for different encounter/event use > cases using a combination of these generic templates. The data gathered in > any event is grouped together under episodes and events using the virtual > folder service. > > This approach ensures the generic nature of the platform, while maintaining > it's extensibility over time. It also helps us contain the proliferation of > templates and keeps our library of commonly used stored queries to a > manageable level. > > May be there are other better approaches than either of these that are > already being used by others. I feel the approach to choose will depend upon > the requirements and so maintaining flexibility for the implementer will be > crucial. > > regards > > Dileep V S > Founder > HealtheLife Ventures LLP > m: +91 9632888113 > a: 106, Innovation Centre, IIIT, Electronics City, Bangalore 560100 > w: ehr.network, ayushehr.com e: dil...@healthelife.in > > >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:04 PM GF <gf...@luna.nl> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Afaik. >> Composition is to document one complete encounter. >> >> I use the ENTRY to start documenting the Documentation process. >> And CLUSTERS to deal with Pannels with Clinical Statements. >> >> >> Gerard Freriks >> +31 620 34 70 88 >> +31 182 22 59 46 >> gf...@luna.nl >> >> Kattensingel 20 >> 2801 CA Gouda >> the Netherlands >> >>> On 4 Jun 2019, at 06:25, Dileep V S <dil...@healthelife.in> wrote: >>> >>> >>> What would be the composition archetype recommended for a template to >>> record summaries such as Smoking & drinking? The best that I could think of >>> is the encounter composition. Do let me know if any other is better suited. >>> >>> On a related note, are there any rules or best practices in choosing the >>> appropriate composition archetype to use for building templates? Are we >>> planning to have more composition archetypes such as Medication list & >>> problem list for use with all kinds of different templates? >>> >>> regards >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
