I didn't know about section archetypes, but now that you mention it, I
see that's what I've actually used -
openEHR-EHR-SECTION.investigations_results_rcp.v1
I was thinking about grouping in the model - essentially what I've done
is to rename the section archetype "Biometrics, Vital Signs and
Investigation Results".
From what you say, it sounds as though that's an acceptable way to
organise/categorise the archetypes within that section.
On point 2, I'll try the problem diagnosis archetypes approach
initially and see how I get on.
Cheers
Grant
On 18/07/2019 17:18, Ian McNicoll wrote:
Hi Grant
1. I'm not sure if you are asking about the groupings in the ui or in
the models. Non invasive blood pressure could appear wherever it makes
most sense for you. You can also use section archetypes to group items
in the composition but I would never want to imply meaning by the
parent grouping. A blood pressure is a blood pressure whether you
consider this locally to be best grouped under examination or
investigation. Headings are useful but in openehr the querying is
designed to be able to ignore the section archetypes.
2. Is a tricky question as it partly depends on who is asking the
question, why and what ought to happen if someone picks up a new
diagnosis. Should this be added formally as a diagnosis to the
patients record.
The pure but more complex approach is to handle this with a set of
problem diagnosis archetypes to capture positive responses and
exclusion archetypes to handle the negatives. This has the benefit of
the data being collected in more reusable and codsble way but is more
annoying to hook up to the ui.
The quick and dirty alternative is to create a local archetype with a
set of booleans that just ask angina yes no. Easy to fit the ui but
essentially throw away.
Ian.
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019, 09:34 J Grant Forrest, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello All, been doing a bit of work (with help from Ian McNicoll)
on an OpenEHR template for surgical pre-operative assessment.
You can view the results of my efforts (and Ian's) here :
https://github.com/johngrant4est/surgical_preassessment
and I'm not sure how this works in terms of sharing but the
working repo is here :
https://ehrscape.marand.si/designerv2/#/designer/repos/surgical_preassessment
The template is being built in the form of a Report, which sort of
matches the real world, in as much as someone does the assessment
which is then made available as a report.
I have 2 challenges currently :
1. How to group the concepts of Biometrics, Physiological
variables e.g. Vital Signs and Investigation Results e.g. labs,
radiology. These all feel as though they should be grouped somehow
as part of the assessment but there is a conflict (in my head)
between the archetypes for investigations_results and exam
findings. Is NIBP an investigation or an exam finding ? I
appreciate that the line between these concepts is a bit blurred.
2. How to model the typical systematic enquiry when taking a
history relevant for peri-op care, e.g. how to record the presence
of angina, hypertension, heart failure, murmurs and group them
under "Cardiovascular".
Any thoughts ?
Cheers
Grant
--
Dr J Grant Forrest
Webmaster, SCATA
www.scata.org.uk <http://www.scata.org.uk>
_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
--
Dr J Grant Forrest
Webmaster, SCATA
www.scata.org.uk <http://www.scata.org.uk>
_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
