Sorry, didn't mean to be glib. I was in clinic, so could only throw out some thoughts. Probably should've mentioned that.
Jonah created a household module that we should cultivate. I would like to see OpenMRS evolve to have more robust cohorts along with cohort-level observations that would subsume much of what Jonah has created in his module. But that will take some design conversations & some time to get in place. OpenMRS core will be unlikely to meet all the needs of any specific CHW program out of the box, since the personnel management, scheduling needs, etc. for a CHW program are likely to go beyond the scope of an EMR. I believe what PIH folks are trying to do (and I applaud them for it) is to try to tease out the common needs across CHW programs so that efforts can leverage OpenMRS in a consistent way and go toward a single, shared module instead of everyone creating their own. -Burke On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Friedman, Roger (CDC/CGH/DGHA) (CTR) < [email protected]> wrote: > Burke, I think this reply is a little glib for the CHW situation. CHWs > tend to be household-based or geography-based, making the relationship > model a little bit gimpy. CHWs also tend to be program oriented, so the > CHW needs to be a provider of program services for programs in which they > have been trained. Also, their encounters tend to be group-oriented, for > which we don’t have easy data entry mechanisms. I think it would be useful > to convene a brainstorming session around CHWS, maybe Andy Kanter could > make happen. **** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Burke > Mamlin > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 12:26 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [OPENMRS-DEV] Modelling Provider Types and Provider > Services in OpenMRS**** > > ** ** > > 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 > **** > _________________________________________ 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]
