Dr Grewal Can you please outline the issues as the included email is from me...Sam
> -----Original Message----- > From: bobdog at sancharnet.in [mailto:bobdog at sancharnet.in] > Sent: Monday, 6 October 2003 1:14 PM > To: Sam Heard; openehr-technical at openehr.org > Subject: CLINICAL DATA TEMPLATES > > > Thomas had indicated that you were going to respond to the issues and > clarify the stand being evolved in this respect by EHR. Shall welcome your > comments. > Dr Grewal > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Heard" <sam.heard at bigpond.com> > To: <openehr-technical at openehr.org> > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 1:35 PM > Subject: RE: Archetypes and Terminology > > > > > > Dear All > > > > This area is difficult and we must learn as we go. There are a few > > conclusions I have come to from an EHR system point of view.. > > > > 1. The data structures and term sets that are required for clinical care > and > > communication must be able to be instituted both prior to and after the > > standardisation processes have been published. > > > > 2. Special requirements that are not contrary to agreed standards should > be > > able to be implemented without difficulty - this is the norm rather than > the > > exception. > > > > 3. Where terminologies required in archetypes are small and generally > > agreed, these should be primarily expressed in the archetype > itself - not > to > > do so is to add to the unrealistic demands on external terminologies. > > > > 4. Translations will be safest inside archetypes where the meaning is > > clear - the context is highly specified. This is a reason to extend the > role > > of internal terminologies of archetypes. > > > > So, the new statements I would make are: > > > > 1. Archetypes should have no language or terminology primacy - and these > > should be able to be added post-hoc. > > > > 2. Terminologies internal to the archetype will always be safer to > translate > > and provide synonyms and specialisations. > > > > Despite the feeling of some in the business, this does not > really diminish > > the need for external terminologies. I am also aware that the > comprehensive > > approach of Philippe and the Odyssey Project and the text processing of > > Peter Elkin. I believe these efforts will remain as relevant, but more > > focussed within an archetype driven information model. > > > > Cheers, Sam Heard > > ____________________________________________ > > Dr Sam Heard > > Ocean Informatics, openEHR > > Co-Chair, EHR-SIG, HL7 > > Chair EHR IT-14-9-2, Standards Australia > > Hon. Senior Research Fellow, UCL, London > > > > 105 Rapid Creek Rd > > Rapid Creek NT 0810 > > > > Ph: +61 417 838 808 > > > > sam.heard at bigpond.com > > > > www.openEHR.org > > www.HL7.org > > __________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org > > > [mailto:owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org]On Behalf Of Thomas Beale > > > Sent: Thursday, 2 October 2003 8:46 PM > > > To: openehr-technical at openehr.org > > > Subject: Archetypes and Terminology (was Re: Antw: Re: Open Source EHR > > > at the Americal Academy of Family Physicians ...) > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > - > > If you have any questions about using this list, > > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org > - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
