One short addition, why this discussion, the original point: What about machine learning? Machine learning becomes possible when many daily health related data are available. A machine can, f.e. detect deviations.
Why generated archetypes? Every day there are new devices, new ideas about health, we cannot wait for CKM to follow day to day inventions, and some of them only used by minorities. The EHR must be able to create archetypes when needed. Op wo 27 jun. 2018 00:18 schreef Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl>: > Thanks for supporting reactions. > > It is really typical in western medical science that it is very problem > oriented. All EHRs, even unconventional one, even the new thinking, it is > very problem oriented. > > All data are gathered around a problem and in relevance of a problem. All > datastructures are pointing to a problem. Without problem there is no > datarecording. > > It is historically grown like that. Medical data collecting is only done > by clinicians, and only when a patient has a problem, the data around the > problem, the diagnosis, and the treatment, that is important. Data which do > not have a known relevance are not recorded. > > And when the patient has a new problem, the only information available are > the problems in history. Information about lifestyle is unknown. One can > ask the patient, but some patients have a selective memory. > > But in sports this is different. Medical datarecording also happens when > there is no problem, but as daily routine. But now, many people today, also > no-sport people, I wrote before today, measure data many times. Apple > patented a blood pressure device in Applewatch. It is cheap, easy to do. > > It will not take long and people have their own EHR at Google, Amazon, > Microsoft, Walmart or Apple, to record their daily medical data. They maybe > will be able to demand that GP's store their findings in that EHR, so a > more holistic view about the patient will become available, and maybe > insurance companies will reward access to that holistic view. > > We must prepare for that, the face of healthcare will change. Until now it > was problem-care, which we called in Orwellian tradition Newspeak: > healthcare. But it will change to really healthcare. It is something > completely different, and it happens fast. > > I learn also from this, while writing I learn. But I have said it all. Now > it would be nice to discuss how to implement healthcare instead of > problemcare. > > Bert > > Op di 26 jun. 2018 22:18 schreef Karsten Hilbert <karsten.hilb...@gmx.net > >: > >> > 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. >> >> Actually, any worthwhile GP thinks like that (except we don't say >> things like "datasets" or "generic archetype"). >> >> I rather doubt you are alone in this. Even on-list. >> >> Karsten >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org >> >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org >> >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
