Philippe AMELINE wrote: > Hi to all, > > We are currently experiencing such things ; it is not easy to have > people understand the difference between description (As accurate as > possible), local study (question 5 can be answered 5.1, 5.2...) and > studies using classifications such as ICD or ICPC where you just can > use concepts inside the classification (and it is sometimes > complicated since, for example, "send to the hospital" as no entry > inside ICPC). > > I don't think you can expect adressing all these issues through > Archetypes
I would not either...we just need some good oontologies... > Yes, a validated scale on a particular issue around human functioning > could be part of an ontology, but perhaps not always. The Barthel > index or the APGAR score e.g. have distinct and different variables > that probably would not stand beside each other in an ontology. Or, it > would be an ontology with many to many parent - child relationships. > > The way we solve this kind of problem is that we incorporated inside > the ontology concepts as "ICD10 code", "ICPC code" and so on. These > ontology concepts are given the code as a "value" in the same way > "patient size (cm)" would be given 180 as a value. the ADL supports this more or less as well... - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
