features.
Bert
Op zo 19 mrt. 2017 om 23:35 schreef Heath Frankel
mailto:heath.fran...@oceanhealthsystems.com>>:
See SPECPR-132 and proposed solution in SPECPR-165 which is designed to not
break the current schema. They appear to be assigned to R1.1 but not progressed
to a CR.
Heath
See SPECPR-132 and proposed solution in SPECPR-165 which is designed to not
break the current schema. They appear to be assigned to R1.1 but not progressed
to a CR.
Heath
From: Heath Frankel
Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2017 10:52 PM
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
mailto:openehr-clinical
Perhaps I have come in at the wrong point of the conversation and missed the
original question but I believe that the SEC has already approved a change (or
at least got a change proposal from me, I’ll need to follow up to find the Jira
card) to add a value to the mappings code phrase. Is this a
Hi Pablo,
Some comments below.
Heath
From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On
Behalf Of pablo pazos
Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2016 12:29 PM
To: openeh technical ; openehr clinical
; s...@lists.openehr.org
Subject: ISM: initial states for instructions / when d
Hi Pablo,
Since wf_details is ITEM_STRUCTURE, then yes it can be archetyped. Just because
the AE doesn't support it does not change this fact. As is this case in many
software projects, functionality in the AE was built on as needed basis so I
would suggest that no one has needed it to date. Sin
phics and clinical.
H
From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On
Behalf Of Heath Frankel
Sent: Tuesday, 5 January 2016 7:04 PM
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
mailto:openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org>>
Subject: RE: Alive vs Dead
Heather,
See ITEM_TREE.p
penehr.org] On
Behalf Of Heath Frankel
Sent: Tuesday, 5 January 2016 6:37 PM
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
mailto:openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org>>
Subject: RE: Alive vs Dead
Heather,
The fact that a person is deceased is already represented in demographic
archetypes.
Regards
Heather,
The fact that a person is deceased is already represented in demographic
archetypes.
Regards
Heath
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:20 PM -0800, "Heather Leslie"
mailto:heather.les...@oceaninformatics.com>>
wrote:
Just talking it through further with Hugh.
The notion of a patient being
mcnic...@openehr.org>
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
On 8 October 2015 at 10:23, Heath Frankel
mailto:heath.fran...@oceaninformatics.com>>
wrote:
The existing versioning rules allow adding new concepts and ope
The existing versioning rules allow adding new concepts and opening constraints
such as allowing additional units. These change the md5 hash but does require a
version /id change.
This is why Sebastian's suggestion technically works, the existing obsolete
concept still exists and the new concep
Hi Heather,
Although I agree with the idea of obsolete concepts, I wonder if it is
necessary in this case of Tilt. Why can’t we just add the additional units as
allowed options leaving the existing degrees symbol but in the element
description indicate that this is obsolete and the correct units
Hi David,
I haven't been involved in the instruction/action modelling recently but I know
that this principle of having the same item structure archetype girl the
activity and action was preferred in the early days, it has recently deviated
for some archetypes at least as the information require
Hi Pablo,
Actions are absolutely necessary and can carry different/additional information
than the instruction.
An instruction is actually useless without an action. It is the action that
puts the action into a particular state at a particular time. When an
instruction is created it should also
Hi Thomas,
I am not sure why we can't use other-details for all of these. It doesn't seem
critical for processing archetypes, it is only for reference.
Regards
Heath
On 21 Nov 2014, at 1:21 am, "Thomas Beale" mailto:thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>> wrote:
There is a test archetype here
I completely agree with this,
The number one priority is that all existing clinical data using archetypes
published in CKM for the last 2-5 years is not Invalidated by this process. I
understand that it was use at your own risk but surely vendors that have taken
the risk to be early adopters get
share this one at the ckm? While it would
be easy for us to generate an archetype that fits our local needs, it might be
worth to contribute this archetype as a starting point in the openEHR ckm to
create something reusable.
Best,
Birger
Am 05.09.2014 14:43, schrieb Heath Frankel:
We use a pa
We use a patient location archetype in addition to a patient admission
archetype so that we can track patient movement around the hospital as part of
a hospital episode.
Heath
Original Message
Subject: RE: transfer/move archetype?
From: Dr Sa
I
> suspect your requirements were a bit more complex.
>
> http://www.openehr.org/ckm/#showTemplate_1013.26.14
>
> Ian
>
> Ian
>
>> On 25 June 2014 10:29, Heath Frankel
>> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> Based on our experience working with goals and targets in our Car
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
Hi all,
I agree we need to try achieve Sam's desire for backward compatibility in
release 2. This is no longer an academic exercise. By the end of the year
we will have systems running with the potential of 4 million health records
growing at 25000 compositions a day. To migrate this volume of data
Hi Stefan,
Are you aware of the NEHTA Pathology DCMs done in Australia. These should
be close to going into CKM if not already, otherwise you may find in the
NEHTA CKM.
Heath
On 23/08/2012 12:26 AM, "Stefan Sauermann"
wrote:
> Agree.
> My preception is that the people in this community share a c
Actually Jag, is not far from the truth.
When you order a lab test you actually need an Instruction to define the lab
test, and an action to put It into the ordered state. The request time of
the lab test order is the time in the action with the ordered state. An
instruction without an action
Hi Sam,
The problem with this is that we currently use the RM inheritance to assist
in these structure constraints, i.e. an ITEM_LIST only contains a CLUSTER
containing only ELEMENTs. However, if you think about it, the semantics of
CLUSTER and ITEM_TREE are equivalent. It is only the level in t
Hi Heather,
Good analysis. The key thing for me is how fluid these values are, will
they change requiring an Archetype change? If so, then they shouldn't be
modelled as an Ordinal and maintained externally. The other things is that
when we using the term mappings, are we talking about the DV_TE
Hi Koray,
In 2009 I did an IHE Medical Summary profile based Template for the
Interoperability Demonstration at HIC. I can't recall the exact
relationships between CCR, CCD and IHE Medical Summary profiles but they
pretty much cover the same concepts. The template was only a subset of the
Referra
The problem is that ontologically v1 is not actually a version identifier,
it is more like an axis of a concept ID, v1 and v2 have different concepts
although they represent the same concept domain (i.e. two different
representations of the same concept). The name of this axis is an
unfortunate le
state of play but is more obvious.
Regards
Heath
Heath Frankel
Product Development Manager
Ocean Informatics
From: openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Ian McNicoll
Sent: Wednesday, 27 April 2011 7:03 PM
To: For
Hi Tom,
I tend to agree with same that annotations are most likely to be localised
and the need for language translations will be minimal, hence the need to
support annotations with a code is overkill and too complex for the 90% of
use cases.
The only use case I have seen that would utilise
William,
You can also use internal references from within archetypes, you define the
structure once and then reference it from other places within the same
Archetype.
If you are working with the same structure across multiple archetypes then
you should use slots. Remember the principle of arc
Tom and Sam,
> Page 11:
>
> Current text:
> Archetypes based on different classes from the same information model
> to
> have the
> same name, e.g. An archetype for 'vital signs' headings based on the
> SECTION
> class, and
> a 'vital signs' archetype based on OBSERVATION.
>
> Comment:
> I belie
William,
When you say "browsing existing archetypes from Ocean", where exactly are
you browsing?
Heath
From: openehr-clinical-boun...@openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of
Williamtfgoossen at cs.com
Sent: Saturday, 14 March 2009 12:59 AM
To: openehr-clin
> -Original Message-
> From: Heath Frankel [mailto:heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com]
> Sent: Monday, 19 January 2009 4:46 PM
> To: 'For openEHR clinical discussions'
> Subject: RE: Demographic archetypes
>
> Hi Daniel,
> This is a bit hack but is a pot
Hi Daniel,
This is a bit hack but is a potential work around for the lack of tooling
support for demographics archetypes based on an approach I have been using
where I am looking to store demographics within an EHR model. You can model
your demographics archetypes in the Archetype Editor using
here are also open source Java components available.
Regards
?
Heath
?
Heath Frankel
Product Development Manager
Ocean Informatics
email:?heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com
Andrew,
The Report composition is used for laboratry reports where there is a
request made resulting the report hence it has context about the request and
report such as request ID, report ID, requesting provider etc.
If there is a request for the monitoring observations then you could use the
rep
Andrew and William,
> > For me encounter and medication list are definitely not archetypes:
> > they differ too much in each circumstance, they are templates that
> > will hold several to many archetypes.
>
> I don't understand the distinction you make here - archetypes
> can hold other arche
Andrew,
> I was just asking from the point of view that, if it say
> became mandatory (or even a selling point) in the US to
> support CCR, how would you imagine it being supported in an
> openehr system (as much as that would be a waste of the
> features in openehr - sometimes you've gotta do
Brett,
> I know what you are saying about RIM semantics but aren't the
> openEHR RM classes, OBSERVATION, INSTRUCTION, EVALUATION,
> etc. implying a general weak clinical semantic as a framework
> for hanging stronger semantic archetyping. I can imply
> certain things about a stored openEHR
Andrew,
> > Actually sections are purely organisational only, they do
> not change
> > the semantics of the entries inside them.
>
> I guess I disagree about the possibility (or usefulness) of
> defining globally recognised archetypes as you go further up
> the tree (towards organising arche
Andrew,
> > data structure defined by a particular organisation but has no true
> > semantics in health, where as a discharge or referral is a
> common concept.
>
> Well, not strictly true - the CCR has semantics that aren't
> the same as discharge or referral but they are seemingly
> clear
capability in the OceanEHR Tools and Application
Components.
Regards
Heath
Heath Frankel
Product Development Manager
Ocean Informatics
___
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical at openehr.org
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
Andrew & Ogi,
openEHR Templates are not Forms, they are aggregations of archetypes with
further constraints. The scope of an openEHR template can be compared with
a form but define the data structure of that form. However openEHR
Templates can be used to drive the design and generation of forms a
Andrew,
I understand the limitation of no specifications for templates. Archetypes
are more than data structures, they are semantic structures. A CCR is a
data structure defined by a particular organisation but has no true
semantics in health, where as a discharge or referral is a common concept
produce a CDAr2 equivalent of the openEHR composition for
communication purposes, but of course you lose the advantages provided by
openEHR.
Regards
Heath
Heath Frankel
Product Development Manager
Ocean Informatics
> -Original Message-
> From: openehr-clinical-bounces at opene
44 matches
Mail list logo
