Thomas Beale wrote: "I like the "hard" sound of "transaction" I have to
admit, because all sorts of rules in GEHR are associated with it - it's the
lowest granularity of transfer, committal, access control settings and so
on."
I like the "hard" sound of "transaction" too but this is probably because I
am so familiar with it in a GEHR context for so long and I do admit that it
is often confused with the more common usage of transaction as a two way
exchange.
I do not particularly like either "contribution" or "submission". Neither
of these words really capture the essence for me.
Can I therefore make two other suggestions after having consulted Roget's
Thesaurus for assistance. The first and the one I prefer is "commission"
since for me, it captures the idea of committing something to the EHR
(whether from human, software, or medical device) and also captures the
concept of attribution which is an important component of the GEHR
transaction.
The second word is "act" which is a "deed" or "thing done". I like this
less than "commission" but it has the virtue of brevity and is also widely
used and understood in the world of messaging (which may or may not be a
good thing).
Peter Schloeffel
************************************************
Dr Peter Schloeffel
Director
openEHR Foundation (Asia-Pacific)
30 Winchester Street
St Peters SA 5069
Australia
Tel: +61 (0)8 8363 1642
Fax: +61 (0)8 8363 4349
Mob: +61 (0)414 669 899
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.gehr.org
www.openehr.org
************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Beale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 21 September 2001 08:13
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Question of naming in GEHR, CEN etc
Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>>Yep, I agree that most would equate EPISODE to what you describe, and that
>>a TRANSACTION does not map to that.
>>
>>How about ENCOUNTER ?
>>
>The newer Dutch reference models for GP information systems
>call this a "partial contact" if I understand correctly what
>is being said here. Possibly several of those make up an "encounter".
>
>http://www.phcsg.org.uk/conferences/cambridge1998/westerhof.htm
>
>I think we have the problem of being stuck inbetween.
>TRANSACTION is too database, encounter or consultation are too
>medical. The thing we are looking for can map to one database
>
exactly right. Also, if test results come in from a path lab, they will
create a transaction of their own. It doesn not have to due to a human being
seeinng the patient, it has to do with a health care agent (which may be a
human being) committing an addition to the record at a point in time.
>
>transaction but does not necessarily include only one. It may
>also map to one consultation - again, it need not. It could be
>the submission of the information of just a part of a
>consultation. I think we need to focus on finding a good name
>for the "act of submission" of a body of information to a
>(possibly storage backed) kernel. This is neither a purely
>medical nor purely IT task. So why not call it "contribution"
>(as suggested earlier and taken from another project) or
>"submission" ?
>
I suspect these are about as good as we'll get in the English language. I
like the "hard" sound of "transaction" I have to admit, because all sorts of
rules in GEHR are associated with it - it's the lowest granularity of
transfer, committal, access control settings and so on.
- thomas beale
