Gerard As we are working on an EHR this is not such a dilemma. There are two things - an instruction to record that something should get done. A blood pressure is fully specified as an archetype so there is only the need to say a BP in this instance. This might be part of the care plan - but it could be to do vital signs every hour. This is an organiser.
I do not see the HL7 or 13606 approaches as appropiate as they are overly complex for an EHR and are appropriate for messaging. Cheers, Sam > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerard Freriks [mailto:gfrer at luna.nl] > Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2002 7:31 AM > To: Sam Heard; Thomas Beale; openehr-technical at openehr.org > Subject: Re: Archetype ontology > > > Sam, > > Could the following be another example? > > The Blood pressure. > The RR as an act, a measurement, a procedure. > And the RR as a set of values, the result of the act, the measurement > results, the result of a procedure. > > The act is one thing, an intention. > The value as the result of the execution of the intention. > > The intention can exist without a real value. > > In ENV 13606 part 2 there are the possibilities to add modifiers > (attributes) to 'things' that can express concepts like these. > > The question is: > Will we need a new Concept Information Model (archetype) to distinguish > between the two or is one attribute enough? > > Gerard > > > > On 03-09-2002 22:31, "Sam Heard" <sam.heard at bigpond.com> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > I have been working hard to get an ontology of archetypes developed that > > will show the health domain mapped into the openEHR architecture. I have > > found a couple of things: > > > > 1. That there is often a link between an instruction and subsequent > > observations - which I think will be more important as > knowledge bases are > > developed in the future. I have called the link an action > specification and > > at present it is modelled as part of the instruction. Let me give a real > > example. > > > > If you prescribe a medicine then there are a number of > attributes of that > > medication order - dose, form, route etc - and there is the frequency of > > administration. When you record that a medication has been > administered - > > then you record the dose, form, route etc - but not the > frequency. The link > > is the specification of the action - but not the conditional > elements of the > > instruction. > > > > Many other things may be specified at the time that they are ordered and > > there may be protocols etc that are to be followed. > > > > For this reason - I have two new subclasses in the ontology (not in > > openEHR) - "openEHR Observation - action" and "openEHR action > > specification". This allows me to say which action > specification applies to > > an instruction and which obeservations it applies to. > > > > 2. It might be necessary to state the sequence of different > instructions. > > The French oncologists wish to state this for Surgery, Radiotherapy, > > Chemotherapy etc. Clearly each of these will have a complex action > > specification. How then to make it clear about the order of the > > instructions - should one finish before the other starts? > > > > I welcome your ideas. I have put the zipped (45K) protege files on > > www.gehr.org in the Watch this space section. > > > > Cheers, Sam > > ____________________________________________ > > Dr Sam Heard > > The Good Electronic Health Record > > Ocean Informatics, openEHR > > 105 Rapid Creek Rd > > Rapid Creek NT 0810 > > Ph: +61 417 838 808 > > sam.heard at bigpond.com > > www.gehr.org > > www.openEHR.org > > __________________________________________ > > > > - > > If you have any questions about using this list, > > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org > > -- <private> -- > Gerard Freriks, arts > Huigsloterdijk 378 > 2158 LR Buitenkaag > The Netherlands > > +31 252 544896 > +31 654 792800 > > - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
