Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

So perhaps someone could consider adding demographic support? The source is at https://github.com/openEHR/adl-designer. ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: i...@freshehr.com twitter: @ianmcnicoll Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.m

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 28-11-15 18:29, pazospa...@hotmail.com wrote: Did anyone tried the marand's online editor with the demographic model? Opinions? I believe it does not support demographic archetypes, if this link is the right one http://ehrscape./marand/.si/designer//archetype-editor/.html _

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

Thanks Birger, I didn't know that, that is, of course, another story. In that case, I will take a look at it right away. Bert On 28-11-15 21:07, Birger Haarbrandt wrote: Hi Bert, to my understanding, the marand editors are open source and based on web technologies. There is no need to create

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

Hi Bert, to my understanding, the marand editors are open source and based on web technologies. There is no need to create/edit archetypes and templates on someone else's server, just let it run in your private network (or locally on your computer). Cheers, Birger Von meinem iPad gesendet >

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 28-11-15 18:29, pazospa...@hotmail.com wrote: Did anyone tried the marand's online editor with the demographic model? Opinions? I would not advise to use an online archetype-editor, if you want your archetypes and templates to be private IP. It is good for students and newcomers who wa

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

Did anyone tried the marand's online editor with the demographic model? Opinions? Sent from my LG Mobile -- Original message--From: Ian McNicollDate: Sat, Nov 28, 2015 8:44 AMTo: For openEHR technical discussions;Subject:Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchyThanks

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

I understand, Peter and Ian, maybe I will build one within a few months, I have planned it, if nothing urgent comes between. It is not very complicated to do. Bert Op 28 nov. 2015 12:44 schreef "Ian McNicoll" : > Thanks Peter, > > Yes. I did make a start on this a few years back but got bogged d

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

Thanks Peter, Yes. I did make a start on this a few years back but got bogged down in not being families with the ui aspects by which time the LinkEhr editor was handling Demographics archetypes nicely. I think this another opportunity to remind everyone that openEHR is a community that relies al

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 27 Nov 2015, at 21:30, Bert Verhees wrote: > > Anyway, the Ocean Archetype-Editor (does it support demographics now?) is not > the OpenEHR specification, it is just an implementation. Hi Bert, No, the Ocean Archetype Editor doesn’t support demographics yet. Fixes and improvements to the E

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

Thank you, Thomas Now I understand that I: 1) can store list of actors (organizations, users, roles etc) in some external storage 2) shall avoid to store whatever demographic information in an EHR storage - except for PARTY identifiers (issued by some external system) 3) can connect participant

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

A couple of words of advice: normally, EHR and demographics 'databases' would be separated for security and operational reasons. EHRs are not normally 'inside' any demographic entities. This section

RE: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

model, but that seems reasonable to me. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez http://cabolabs.com > From: barano...@yandex.ru > To: pazospa...@hotmail.com; openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org > Subject: Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy > Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 27-11-15 10:23, Thomas Beale wrote: there is no 'policy' about treating the Demographics specification as 'inferior'. I think I need to explain how and why I thought that. I found the message which caused my recollection that demographic information structures were regarded as inferior stru

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 27-11-15 10:33, Sebastian Garde wrote: …or if it is for an archetype, you can raise a Change Request directly for that archetype on CKM, I just did it, thanks for the tip Bert ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org h

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 27-11-15 10:34, Bert Verhees wrote: as ultrastructure. as ultrastructure.??? Must be "information-structure" (sorry) ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 27-11-15 10:27, Thomas Beale wrote: If people want specific changes to the specifications, please raise a Problem Report in the usual place . Otherwise we don't know what the specific shortcomings are.

RE: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Freitag, 27. November 2015 10:28 To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy If people want specific changes to the specifications, please raise a Problem Report in the usual place<ht

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

If people want specific changes to the specifications, please raise a Problem Report in the usual place . Otherwise we don't know what the specific shortcomings are. - thomas On 27/11/2015 09:02, Bert Verh

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

Hi Bert, there is no 'policy' about treating the Demographics specification as 'inferior'. The practical point about demographics is that it is often not implemented because many clinical IT environments already have an MPI, so an openEHR EHR system typically implements the PARTY_PROXY.exte

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 27-11-15 09:56, Dmitry Baranov wrote: I agree that demographic details can be expressed via archetypes. Actors/Participation/Names etc are elaborated well in HL7 CDA spec, by the way That is a point, why is it not like that in OpenEHR or EN13606?

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

I agree that demographic details can be expressed via archetypes. Actors/Participation/Names etc are elaborated well in HL7 CDA spec, by the way > In Spanish/Portuguese orientated countries they treat lastnames > different, so the archetypes were not really good usable in other countries. > But it

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

That is something funny, demographics are something which are treated as a stepchild, not only in OpenEHR, .. It is even so that in CKM for long time where no demographics archetypes at all. Until a moment, some years ago, in 2009, Sergio Miranda Freire posted them, a Brazilian version. In

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

I think it is very easy to solve. The premise is that several legal entities are sharing patients, and also share an EHR system, and you want to distinguish which treatment is given by which legal institution. It is easy, build your system so, that all compositions are also placed in folders

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

> Hi Dmitry, > > Consider that the folder structure is defined for each EHR, and can vary vary > between ehrs inside the same company. > I would use LINK to link the org to the ehr folder struct. (ORGANIZATION as LOCATABLE).links[0] points to a folder/versioned folder through URI? Thank you Pa

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

> The root of an patient-EMD is the EHR (with rootfolder), and there is > the patient linked to. > If an EHR system is shared by more organizations, there share also > patients, I guess. Else I don't get the point from sharing. 1. It often occurs that few medical institutions share same building,

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

Hi Dmitry, Consider that the folder structure is defined for each EHR, and can vary vary between ehrs inside the same company.I would use LINK to link the org to the ehr folder struct. Sent from my LG Mobile -- Original message--From: Dmitry BaranovDate: Thu, Nov 26, 2015 7:

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 26-11-15 23:47, Dmitry Baranov wrote: OK Bert, let's say that an EHR system manages a graph of objects and my idea is just a representation of such a graph. PARTY_IDENTIFIED (Patient) - OBJECT_ID (Patient) - COMPOSITION - OBSERVATION - FOLDER - PARTY_IDENTIFIED (Organizaion) If you like :)

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

OK Bert, let's say that an EHR system manages a graph of objects and my idea is just a representation of such a graph. PARTY_IDENTIFIED (Patient) - OBJECT_ID (Patient) - COMPOSITION - OBSERVATION - FOLDER - PARTY_IDENTIFIED (Organizaion) If you like :) > I believe OpenEHR is patient-centric, a

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

My two cents, I believe OpenEHR is patient-centric, and a patient can have treatment in more healthcare-centra. So the patient should be on the root of an EHR, and the healthcare-organisation should somewhere appropriate being linked to a specific treatment/composition, received in that orga