I agree with this one. Option 1 would create a kind of forest of
dependencies, many many archetypes in complex hierarchic systems, like
SNOMED in the endnodes.
I don't think anyone would want this.
Option 2 is the option represents the power of OpenEHR.
By the way, SNOMED also supports higher h
I also recommend to use option 2. The most powerful feature of the openEHR
approach is to have the concepts builds as lego blocks, the maximum data,
aiming they can be reused in several scenarios.
That let out of the messy spaces of specialist systems, each one modeling
their own vision of concep
Hi due to
We developed a UK oriented termsrt as the LOINC based list used by HL7 CDA
was too US oriented but the principle is identical. We will probably apply
the term to composition name/value which allows mappings rather than the
templateid. Both are available to AQL
Ian
On 26 Sep 2017 at 10
Hi Pablo,
I am not a clinician but as an implementer I see the benefits of less
specific archetypes quite often. The fundamental role of archetypes is
reuse. It is so by design and templates solve the problem of composition
(in the object oriented sense, not the RM type).
I think the rule I try t
Hi all!
I agree with Heather, making even just a subset of the generic archetypes
context specific will lead to governance horrorfest, both on the CKM level and
for each application/vendor. I imagine it also could make querying for specific
clinical concepts across different clinical contexts m
I agree with Ian that we should probably use a real 'coded' approach? I
believe HL7 uses Loinc for that. Spanish MoH has also proposed snomed terms
for each entry in the national archetypes. Maybe we can explore something
like this before trying to create our own pseudoterminology
2017-09-26 11:10
Hi Heather
That is pretty well my approach too. I think we will start yo see more
formal coding of composition names to be able to accurately identify the
content. In the UK we have developed a document name SNOMED subset for this
purpose and will also use this for ihe xds metadata.
Ian
On 26 Se
Hi Pablo,
The modeller’s dilemma!
If you make clinical synopsis more specific then how many variations will there
be in the end? We will end up with zillions of variations of all the generic
archetypes which will be an absolute governance nightmare.
I would prefer to see the queryable filter m
Hi
I prefer modelling with specialized and small archetypes, this way I may choose
to query across templates (contains [openEHR.EHR.OBSERVATION.whatever.v1]) or
ask for the template/specific composition if the context is important.
So, your model method 1 does not exclude using queries method 2
9 matches
Mail list logo
