Link between goals and other clinical concepts

odel-designers, the war is not over yet, and it will never be. There will be great ideas which need an own Reference Model. Being prepared for that is a good thing. Best regards Bert -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140625/df01d505/attachment.html>

Semantics in Reference Models, was Re: Link between goals and other clinical concepts

Hi Ian, As I come to think about it, it is a bit different, then I thought yesterday it was. Because a Reference Model, HISA, or some HL7 document, or OpenEHR, they can be mimicked by a Reference Model without semantics. But it is only the structure you mimic, and that works fine. But is you a

Link between goals and other clinical concepts

On 25-06-14 11:43, Heather Leslie wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm just going to chip in here because we see a lot of discussion about > drawbacks of the openEHR ENTRY types, but not a lot of endorsement. After 8 > years of modelling archetypes, I find that the ENTRY classes work really > well, and this

Link between goals and other clinical concepts

generic form of ENTRY; this is what let's the 'thousand flowers bloom', but doesn't prevent proper reference structures being in the RM either. In the near future we will fix this. - thomas -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140625/d67d89d7/attachment-0001.html>

Link between goals and other clinical concepts

I might need Adam to help with the specifics but from memory, since we implemented a problem oriented care plan, we had a set of goals that may be relevant for a specific problem, the targets relevant to a goal, the type of data representation of the target (e.g text, single value, range, less

Link between goals and other clinical concepts

Hi Heath, That is very interesting. Can you give an example of the kind of metadata you are storing externally? I don't see the problem per-se with having term-driven models but perhaps that is because a UK perspective is always a bit more comfortable with this approach, but I also understand how

Link between goals and other clinical concepts

Hi Bert, As ever these are interesting discussions and the 'no semantics' in the reference model approach has some attractions. I happen to agree with Hugh that it seems that one way or other, there are a set of generic semantic constructs which need to be broadly and tightly adhered to, and cont

Link between goals and other clinical concepts

Hi all, I'm just going to chip in here because we see a lot of discussion about drawbacks of the openEHR ENTRY types, but not a lot of endorsement. After 8 years of modelling archetypes, I find that the ENTRY classes work really well, and this is subsequently borne out in implementation. For ex

Link between goals and other clinical concepts

Hi All, Based on our experience working with goals and targets in our Care Planning system in Australia, the use of specialised Goals is not viable option from an implementation perspective. The specialisation I am talking about is a little different to what has been discussed so far as we were

Link between goals and other clinical concepts

Hi Hugh, It is indeed a discussion which runs for several years. I mentioned 13606 but it can also be done in OpenEHR. OpenEHR also has lists, trees, clusters, elements, all derived from Locatable, thus archetypeable. So you can define (what I call) an information model, based on the generic s