Dear Colleague, Archetypes are clinical concept models. They communicate and express domain information models about clinical concepts. Archetypes are ways to express clinical knowledge on what has to be recorded documenting the provision of healthcare. Archetypes (at this moment) are not designed to deal with clinical knowledge about the interpretation of documented clinical facts. Decision support. Fields in archetypes that are specified are containers to be used for documentation.
One type of the family of archetypes is the Observation. One of the possible observations is the Lab-test. For each lab-test the following things will have to be (can be) recorded about the test itself and its results: - name of the test - value/outcome/result - units of measurement - normal values - interpretation - comment ->relevance<- Each healthcare provider that is using this archetype will be able to record the indicated information about any lab-test. The name of the test plus units of measurement are linked to each other. Result is the number that is the result of a measurement that is recorded and can vary. Normal values are dependent on local circumstances. Each lab has its own normal values for all of the tests they perform. The interpretation of the test result and its normal values are dependent on local arrangements, clinical speciality, and patient related contexts. The comment is additional information that has to be recorded about the test. Thinking about it I foresee the need for a flag indicating that this lab test result is considered relevant or irrelevant by the Observer. The reason for this is: Suppose all fields are filled but the comment field states that the blood was not collected properly. Then all data that is recorded is interpreted as less relevant/reliable but can not (must not) be disregarded fully. Perhaps all Archetypes of the Observation Type need this extra field I call "Relevance". To answer your e-mail. I think that the normal value and the interpretation are NOT part of the archetype definition. Within the archetype specification one can not deal with all situations that influence the normal values dependent on local contexts that vary from point in time to point in time, from place to place and from context to context. Normal values have to be provided by the lab. The interpretation has to be provided by the Observer (e.g. the lab or the physician). Or in the case of Clinical decision Support the module that handles this type of clinical knowledge. Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, arts Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252 544896 M: +31 653 108732 On 25-okt-2006, at 0:27, Rodrigo Filgueira wrote: > We've been running throuh the "normal" and possible ranges of > values for > lab tests and found that the archetype I mention in the subject > does not > state but a "bigger than 0" restriction for Haemoglobin, RCC, etc. > > I decided to take a look because ranges provided to me indicated > diferent "possible" ranges for male and female patients and was > wondering how would archetypes model this issue. > > This is a very similar question to another one I did some time ago > regarding normal, abnormal, dangerous, etc. ranges. But in this > case my > question refers to the "possible" values the test may return. > > In order to differentiate male from female ranges assertions would > need > to be introduced? > Or do you believe this is too a matter of decission support? > > thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20061025/d4aeb5ab/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
