Wayne Wilson wrote:
> Thomas Beale wrote:
>
> >
> > Anyway, Angelo's work above is interesting, and shows a couple of deficiencies
> > in the GEHR/CEN approach to things which we need to take note of. It also
> > (IMO) has its own deficiencies, but is nevertheless a clear and comprehensive
> > attempt to tease out some of the levels of abstraction of clinical
> > information, and I see it as 80% correct.
>
> >
> I have to push you on this. I don't see levels of
> abstraction here, I see a decomposition into a grammar of
> expression, sort of like noun, verb, adverb.
Actually, I was tired when I wrote that! I did not mean "levels of abstraction", but
"levels of contextual information", from the inner values out to the point where you
have not only the information about how/when/where the observation was done, but the
information of the information getting into the EHR.
So the point of angelo's analysis (IMO) is that the EHR needs to clearly reflect
these different layers of contextual information, in order to a) not miss anything
(e.g. like his status meanings of "at risk of" etc, and b) to be processable.
- thomas beale
