Le 05/04/2018 à 15:43, Thomas Beale a écrit :
> we really should build a combined descriptive architecture to show how
> all this fits together to solve:
>
> * the continuum of deterministic - non-deterministic utterances
> possible in healthcare
> * the linguistic interface v structured
On 05/04/2018 13:50, Philippe Ameline wrote:
In my mind, fils guides and archetype are of different kind: an
archetype is a flexible information schema and nodes that were "build
using this mold" keep a link to it ; on the contrary, a fil guide is
nothing more than a UI helper that makes a
Le 05/04/2018 à 12:16, Thomas Beale a écrit :
> On 02/04/2018 18:38, Philippe Ameline wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I don't think that I use grammar in an unusual way. If I do
>> it technically, lets assume for the sake of the discussion that I am
>> really talking about a grammar, ie a set of rules
On 02/04/2018 18:38, Philippe Ameline wrote:
Actually, I don't think that I use grammar in an unusual way. If I do
it technically, lets assume for the sake of the discussion that I am
really talking about a grammar, ie a set of rules that allows you to
interpret an arrangement of concepts
Sorry, this was a reply to Philippe on his message on 14:07
Op ma 2 apr. 2018 15:16 schreef A Verhees :
> Mostly a patients history is regarded in a consultation. Mostly this is
> history from after the start of the electronical era and being treated in
> the Netherlands .
Le 02/04/2018 à 12:54, A Verhees a écrit :
> > The "good all" SOAP is dead ; nowadays, the encounter stream is switching to
> (AP)SO(A'P'):
> > people now come with an existing set of Assessments and Procedures,
> > not "just" with "Subjective" issues.
>
> Wasn't that always the case?
We are
> The "good all" SOAP is dead ; nowadays, the encounter stream is switching
to (AP)SO(A'P'):
> people now come with an existing set of Assessments and Procedures,
> not "just" with "Subjective" issues.
>
Wasn't that always the case?
___
Le 01/04/2018 à 14:13, Thomas Beale a écrit :
> On 31/03/2018 10:38, Philippe Ameline wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> When I try to explain all this to lesser tech-savvy people (means,
>> who don't belong to this list ;-) ), I usually explain that:
>> - usual systems (with an information schema tied to a
Thomas,
If I had to sum up the debate, I would write something like:
- pre-coordination is necessary for legacy systems that stick to coding
systems and didn't make the move to more elaborated representation of
information,
- pre-coordination's drawback is that expressing sentences as concepts
One thing I have noticed in recent systems in Brazil I looked at is that
the codes are locally defined (e.g. SIGTAP, a Brazilian vocabulary for
procedures) and almost all pre-coordinations of the most unscientific
kind (with terms of the form 'cholecystectomy performed at private or
military
On 31/03/2018 10:38, Philippe Ameline wrote:
...
When I try to explain all this to lesser tech-savvy people (means, who
don't belong to this list ;-) ), I usually explain that:
- usual systems (with an information schema tied to a database schema)
are like a printed form. The day after you
ong because it doesn’t take into account that
>>> healthcare is unpredictable, and this makes recording more difficult for
>>> the clinician. How many different variations would you have to select from?
>>> Take the made up example “sitting systolic blood pressure with a medi
;
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *Silje*
>
>
>
> *From:*openEHR-technical
> <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org
> <mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>> *On Behalf
> Of *Mikael Nyström
> *Sent:* Fr
Hi Philippe,
See inline please
On Friday, March 30, 2018, Philippe Ameline
wrote:
> Le 28/03/2018 à 23:42, GF a écrit :
>
> I see the analogies:
> - Ontology = Encyclopedia
> - Terminology = Dictionary
> - Archetype = Phrase
>
>
> Hi Gerard,
>
> I would rather see
;
> *Från:* openEHR-technical [mailto:
> openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] *För *Bert Verhees
> *Skickat:* den 23 mars 2018 20:01
>
>
> *Till:* openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
> *Ämne:* Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again
>
>
>
> Diego, this is a wise thoug
boun...@lists.openehr.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Bakke, Silje Ljosland
> *Sent:* Friday, 23 March 2018 8:35 PM
>
>
> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <
> openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
>
> *Subject:* RE: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again
>
:35 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
Subject: RE: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again
I read Thomas' reply with great interest, and I generally agree that with a
well thought out information model, the very detailed precoordinated
*Mikael Nyström
*Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2018 10:06 AM
*To:* For openEHR technical discussions
<openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
<mailto:openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>>
*Subject:* SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again
Hi tom,
I can agree w
:* openEHR-technical <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Mikael Nyström
> *Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2018 10:06 AM
> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.
> openehr.org>
> *Subject:* SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ...
day, March 23, 2018 10:06 AM
> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.
> openehr.org>
> *Subject:* SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again
>
>
>
> Hi tom,
>
>
>
> I can agree with you that if SNOMED CT was created when all pati
om: openEHR-technical <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> On Behalf
Of Mikael Nyström
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 10:06 AM
To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
Subject: SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again
Hi tom,
I can agree w
Hi Mikael,
On 23/03/2018 09:05, Mikael Nyström wrote:
Hi tom,
I can agree with you that if SNOMED CT was created when all patients
in the world already had all information in their health record
recorded using cleverly built and structured information models (like
archetypes, templates
.org]
För Thomas Beale
Skickat: den 23 mars 2018 01:06
Till: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
Ämne: Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again
I have made some attempts to study the problem in the past, not recently, so I
don't know how much the content has changed in the last 5 years. Two po
I have made some attempts to study the problem in the past, not
recently, so I don't know how much the content has changed in the last 5
years. Two points come to mind:
1. the problem of a profusion of pre-coordinated and post-coordinatable
concepts during a *lexically-based choosing process
Mikael
Från: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org]
För Heather Leslie
Skickat: den 22 mars 2018 08:01
Till: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
Ämne: RE: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... aga
penehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
Subject: Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again
Hi Heather,
In general, anyone is welcome to participate in the work; you don't need to be
one of the small number of Advisory Group members. That helps with travel
costs, but most of the real work i
ehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> on behalf
of Heather Leslie <heather.les...@atomicainformatics.com>
Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2018 9:46 AM
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: RE: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again
Hi Mikael,
What efforts are being made to resolv
t;openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
Subject: SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again
Hi Tom,
I believe that you proposal to ”move / remove the pre-coordinated codes out of
SNOMED” is very appealing in theory. However it is very difficult in reality to
agree on where the line between a
: Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again
Nevertheless, I think it would have been good to move / remove the
pre-coordinated codes out of SNOMED, and leave a pure post-coordinatable core,
which would actually look a lot more like Philippe's (much smaller) terminology.
This relates
Nevertheless, I think it would have been good to move / remove the
pre-coordinated codes out of SNOMED, and leave a pure post-coordinatable
core, which would actually look a lot more like Philippe's (much
smaller) terminology.
This relates to the old debate on reference v interface
Hi Philippe,
I think that you have missed that SNOMED CT is created for multiple use cases.
Your use case that you describe as "a modern approach" is a good use case that
I like. In that use case SNOMED CT can be used in the way you describe using
SNOMED CT's concepts a little higher up in the
Interesting times indeed :-)
Le 12/03/2018 à 18:06, Birger Haarbrandt a écrit :
> Please never underestimate the Germans...
>
> Am 12.03.2018 um 14:54 schrieb Mikael Nyström:
>> Will France as usual be the last country that adopt something that originate
>> from Great Britain? :-)
>>
>>
Please never underestimate the Germans...
Am 12.03.2018 um 14:54 schrieb Mikael Nyström:
Hi,
Have anybody ever heard about a health-it-project that hadn't a smaller or
larger group of sceptic people that try to build momentum against the project?
:-)
For SNOMED CT the trend at least seems
Hi,
Have anybody ever heard about a health-it-project that hadn't a smaller or
larger group of sceptic people that try to build momentum against the project?
:-)
For SNOMED CT the trend at least seems to be that fewer and fewer people
belongs to the sceptic group, and about half of the
34 matches
Mail list logo