Dear all
I have been thinking about the date/time measurement with regard to
interval measurements in the HISTORY class (used in OBSERVATION)
Consider a maximum temperature measured over a 12 hour period - or an
average. At the moment the date/time will be the beginning of the 12 hr
period.
Phillippe
We are working hard on INSTRUCTION at the moment and have a document
coming out soon.
The model is basically to have an instruction and a new class of ENTRY
which records execution or actions. Thus the execution of an instruction
can be tracked and any variation recorded (to the
Ergin, and all
ERGIN: Thanks - there is no problem working from date of birth forward
to age group - it is when you are working back and times are fuzzy. In
family history when the DOB is not known it is even more of an issue.
The issue of FUZZY ages (and other quantities)
I believe we need a
Philippe
I would suggest that the duration of the event is not included - rather
modelled in instructions themselves as there are many different ideas of
event duration. The time to give a dose of intravenous agent may be very
specific and I believe needs to be modelled explicitly - not as
Consider a maximum temperature measured over a 12 hour period - or an
average. At the moment the date/time will be the beginning of the 12 hr
period.
My suggestion is that clinicians will record this at the end of the 12
hours and the date/time should reflect this.
That is to say:
The question to the implementors is: which name is preferable -
node_id or archetype_node_id?
I prefer archetype_node_id for the same reasons mentioned by Thomas.
And I don't see any big problem caused by this change in our current
implementation.
Rong
Thomas Beale wrote:
Dear all,
Karsten Hilbert wrote:
Consider a maximum temperature measured over a 12 hour period - or an
average. At the moment the date/time will be the beginning of the 12 hr
period.
My suggestion is that clinicians will record this at the end of the 12
hours and the date/time should reflect this.
For an age, I agree that the date of birth is adequate as long as you
remember people do not age after they die. It is also convenient to have a
reference time mark for many things, including conception, start of a
course of treatment. Adjectives and nouns are difficult to put into
algorithms
://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20050131/dfe55f71/attachment.bin
Gerard,
From all the messages, it seems to me we can define 3 kind of values :
1) Values with a genuine relationship with date of birth : youth, middle
age, elderly...
Those who can manage fuzzy sets will do it that way, while others will
have to use simple time intervals based on date of
Who are you calling elderly?
I still hold out for age, even if it is fuzzy.
Ed
Gerard Freriks gfrer at luna.nl@openehr.org on 01/31/2005 04:25:17 PM
Please respond to Gerard Freriks gfrer at luna.nl
Sent by:owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org
To:William E Hammond hammo001 at
I agree with using date of birth for making the determination of an
individual's age, as long as we have support for relative age for concepts such
as puberty, menopause, at an age of risk given their family history of a
malignance with a first degree relative whose onset of illness was at a
12 matches
Mail list logo
