2006/9/20, Gerard Freriks <gfrer at luna.nl>: > > Hi, > I'm not a pathologist. > But was a GP. > > As GP I'm not interested in an arbitrary classification. > What is minimally necessary are: the value, the units of measurement and > the normal range as used in that lab for that measurement at that time. > What is handy (optional) and only for signalling a human reader, and NOT > for computer semantic processing, are: a Flag that a value is out of range, > and a comment/advice/interpretation provided by the lab. >
What about decision support software? /Mattias "Value" is not always a series of digits. It can be an ordinal. It can be > text. > > Gerard > > -- <private> -- > > Gerard Freriks, arts > > Huigsloterdijk 378 > > 2158 LR Buitenkaag > > The Netherlands > > > T: +31 252 544896 > > M: +31 653 108732 > > > > > On 20-sep-2006, at 0:27, Heath Frankel wrote: > > So, it appears that we have no pathologists on the list to comment on the > > standardisation of these codes. I guess all I can suggest is that these > are > > standard codes as per the HL7 V2.x standard but the interpretation of > using > > them is unlikely to be but it is just that we are looking the capture and > > not loose in the translation from HL7 message to openEHR. Having said > that, > > in Australia it is common practice by labs to use three levels of > > abnormality (i.e. HHH & LLL(. > > > Would an alternate approach be to include an additional element in the > > Archetype to store this abnormality flag rather than including it in the > > DV_ORDERED? > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060920/49e34d63/attachment.html>
