Issues regarding archetypes: AH > >Are these archetypes required for new GEHR/CEN compliance?
TB > No, they wouldn't be. They would be basic archetypes designed to a) show > software developers and users how the system works, and b) save a lot of > work for users who can use the example archetypes (e.g. a basic set of > GP archetypes would go a long way). I think that this still needs to be discussed. We have found from our initial research in Australia that it is possible to create very generic archetypes which cater for a large range of information. It is my hope that this will translate internationally. As we have based this work on the HL7 and LOINC experience it is likely to. As sharing of base archetypes is the basis for interoperability (the information model provides information sharing) it is clear that we need to maximise the sharing of this hopefully small number of archetypes (perhaps as low as 300). AH >How will deviations from the "reference/default archetypes" be handled? > > TB > Well, archetypes are designed to have any amount of "deviation" you > want, by either a) define a specialised (more restricted) archetype > based on an existing one, or b) define a new version of an exisitng > archetype (to fix an error), or c) just define a new archetype. New versions of base archetypes are likely to loosen the constraint on the prior version (this could be seen as an error but may relate to new requirements). It is our plan at the moment to have a set of base archetypes called 'any' which can be constrained locally to meet needs not met with the other archetypes. It will be clear that these cannot be processed locally unless they are known to the local system. Due to the multilevel architecture it is not envisaged that these will lead to the same problems we have seen with Z segments but this is yet to be proven. TB > Note that higher-level archetypes tend to have pieces in them which > allow almost anything, and lower level ones specialise this by further > restricting these parts to be particular structures. So specialising > does not mean you can't add features; in fact you can. See the > biochemistry example in the archetypes paper. TB > There will be a copy of the archetype editor we use on the web in the > next couple of weeks, along with 60 or so archetypes. It is undergoing > some last changes before release. It is based on the existing GEHR > models, so is in a sense already legacy. But it will show what building > archetypes is like, and generates real schema-compliant XML. If you > write archetypes with this tool, we should be able to convert them to > the new openEHR form when it is finalised. Cheers, Sam _______________________________________ Sam Heard Director General Practice Education and Research Unit NT Clinical School, Flinders University PO Box 41326, Casuarina NT 0811 Ph: +61 (0)8 8922 7937 Fx: +61 (0)8 8922 7928 W: www.gperu.org The Good Electronic Health Record www.gehr.org _______________________________________
