Dear Bert, You mention: "There will be some semantics. A clinician can indicate that data are from the user story, or from the observation, so, that is already some information."
If there is some semantics: The archetype to store this information will then need at least some structure, and not be "completely generic"? (I try to better understand your use case. Probably "generic" needs a definition to agree on?) Greetings, all the best, Stefan Am 26. Juni 2018 16:16:51 MESZ schrieb Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl>: >On 26-06-18 14:35, Stefan Sauermann wrote: >> Dear Bert, all! >> Sorry if this consumes excess bandwith, feel free to delete. >> >> The case you describe clearly provides a sound reason why "generic >> archetypes will remain necessary". >> I agree completely. This use case must always be satisfied. >> It does not include automated processing at the receiving end. The >> receiving party must read the information and decide what to do, >using >> their human brain cells, no 100% reliable computer aided decision >> support (as in medical devices). >> >> In this use case, I see no difference between: >> - transmitting information within a "generic archetype" >> - transmitting the same information in unstructured free text. >> >> Both technologies provide a useful solution for the use case. >> - So (in my humble view) this specific use case does not demand a >> "generic archetype". In other words, it needs no archetype at all. >Just a few days ago I heard about Google scanning a great number of >files of all kind and format, searching for medical information. The >results were quite remarkable. > >https://www.healthdatamanagement.com/articles/google-continues-work-to-use-machines-for-health-analytics > >But unstructured information is not what I am aiming for. > >There will be some semantics. >A clinician can indicate that data are from the user story, or from the > >observation, so, that is already some information. >While talking with the patient, the doctor can measure heartbeat, >bloodpressure, saturation, temperature, bloodsugar, even almost without > >touching de patient. It will be more soon. >Development goes so fast. >And patients can also measure data at home, or at work, or wherever. >Context is also location, patient personal data, time of the day, >jet-lag, season of the year, weather conditions, other medical >conditions, alcohol consumption, social status > >Most of these data are not regarded as relevant in the actual medical >condition. So archetypes do not have items for this. > >There are two kind of medical data. >a) Medical data which are relevant in the context of a specific medical > >condition. >b) Medical data of which the relevancy is not yet known in the context >of a medical condition, or another medical condition, which maybe is >also not known at the moment. > >The data of the second kind are also medical data, so why not store >them? > >Karsten yesterday said, a person at the doctor should be more then a >medical complaint. I agree with that. But the current medical practice >is not like that. >You go to the doctor with a medical complaint, and you talk about that, > >the doctor does research in that context, and the software finds some >archetypes which fit to that. > >But the person should be seen as more then a medical complaint, but as >a >complex of conditions and lifestyle. >We need generic archetypes which can store machine generated datasets >to >store information about the whole person, instead of only the medical >condition which is subject of conversation. > >I believe I am the only person in this list who thinks like that. But >that does not matter. > >Have a nice day >Bert
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
