I think that being able to tag providers is more useful than giving them a single type. Nobody is both a Surgeon and a CHW, but I can imagine other provider categorizations where you'd want someone to have >1 of them.
We definitely discussed (and opted to delay) letting encounter metadata specify minOccurs/maxOccurs constraints for the number of providers they'd need for given encounter roles. And if we're going to do that we'd want a mechanism for saying what types of providers could fill which encounter roles. Seems like you could start off by creating a "Provider Type" attribute, with minOccurs = 0, maxOccurs=infinity, and plan to eventually migrate that to a tag when that gets added. -Darius On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Michael Seaton <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > Thanks Ben and Burke, > > One thing Mark brings up is the notion that we want to be able to model > Types of Providers, as well as the types of services that they can > provide. Is there any notion of this built into the 1.9 Provider model or > the future road map for Provider? Is the intention that ProviderAttribute > is meant to provide sufficient flexibility to encapsulate either Provider > Types or Provider Services (or Provider anything else) as needed? If so, I > get that, but want to confirm that this is the direction intended. I could > see a case for modeling one or both of these explicitly, as it would seem > that ProviderType is something we are going to frequently want to support > (eg. show a list of all Surgeons on form X, or all Community Health Workers > on page Y). > > Mike > > > > > On 03/13/2012 12:26 PM, Burke Mamlin wrote: > > The encounter represents a clinical transaction in our model, so as Ben > suggests, a provider providing clinical services for a patient would fall > into an encounter, which (eventually) could generate any number of > observations, orders, notes, or form data. > > For denoting ongoing relationships between persons (e.g., providers & > patients), we would use the relationship model. > > To connect multiple encounters over time, you could use the visit model > (created to group encounters, but usually representing a series of > contiguous encounters) or the yet-to-be-implemented episodes of care, which > are designed to connect encounters related to a treatment program across > multiple, possibly non-contiguous, visits (e.g., pregnancy). > > FWIW, I believe we added (or planned to add) date ranges to relationships; > however, if you want to track "service" (possibly for billing purposes), > then I would suggest using visits, since that's where an account number > would go. > > Note that these aren't mutually exclusive. For example, you could create > relationships to track relationships between accompagnateurs and their > patients and still record encounters +/- visits for clinical transactions > between the provider and their patient. > > -Burke > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Mark Goodrich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ben, >> >> >> >> Hmm… that may be the way to do it generically, but I don’t know if it >> works for us since we need to model this over time. >> >> >> >> Mark >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Ben Wolfe >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:39 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [OPENMRS-DEV] Modelling Provider Types and Provider >> Services in OpenMRS >> >> >> >> Would you be able to store these as the encounterrole for that CHW for >> each encounter? >> >> Ben >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Mark Goodrich <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I’ve been looking at the new Provider model in 1.9, and I was wondering >> if thought has been put into modeling provider types (Cardiologist, PCP) >> and specific provider services, and how to record that a provider provided >> a specific service to a patient. Do we have a vision as to how we may want >> to model this going forward? >> >> >> >> The reason I’m asking is that I’m currently working on determining how >> PIH wants to model Community Health Workers within our system, and I’m >> considering how they may fall into a more generic provider structure. We >> want to be able to handle various types of CHWs (Accompagnateurs, Pallative >> care workers, Community Health Nurses) that provide various services (HIV >> accompaniment, end-of-life care, etc) that we’d like to be able to model, >> and then we’d like to be able to track what services are being provided to >> what patients. Additionally, we need to track the dates over which a CHW >> provided such a service, ie: >> >> >> >> “Accompagnateur A provided HIV accompaniment to Patient B from 1/2/2010 >> to 3/4/2011” >> >> >> >> At first, it seems like Relationships would be the way to model this kind >> of interaction, since a relationship defines a relationship between two >> people, and (as of 1.9) can have a start date and an end date. However, it >> doesn’t quite seem to be the right way to do this, primarily because a >> relationship is a Person-to-Person relationship, when what we are modeling >> is a Provider-to-Patient relationship. It seems like this is an >> archetypical relationship in an EMR that it may make sense to model in a >> different manner than general relationships. >> >> >> >> Take care, >> >> Mark >> > > ------------------------------ > Click here to > unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list > > ------------------------------ > Click here to > unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list > _________________________________________ To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body (not the subject) of your e-mail. [mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
