Bhupinder The protocol describes the methods of measurement - each measure can only have one protocol - so this means that the measurement would be entered twice - quite appropriate because it is unlikely that a different method will lead to exactly the same result.
Cheers, Sam > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org > [mailto:owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org]On Behalf Of Bhupinder Singh > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 1:12 PM > To: Sam Heard; Openehr-Technical > Subject: Re: Pathology requirements TIMED MEASUREMENTS > > > > Further to what you have stated there will also be events such as > sample is > single time is same and the test is same but method of reporting and or > conducting test is different. Blood Sugar is one example sample > is taken and > tested on the bedside and sent to a lab also. These events and > results need > to be accommodated. > > Bhupinder > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Heard" <sam.heard at bigpond.com> > To: "Openehr-Technical" <openehr-technical at openehr.org> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 4:02 PM > Subject: Pathology requirements TIMED MEASUREMENTS > > > > TIMED MEASUREMENTS > > > > The timed nature of specimens is dealt with in the history and > event model > > of the RM and available in the archetype editor. This deals with timed > > measurements and interval measurements. The idea of a 21 day > progesterone > is > > covered in state information relating to the time since the > last menstrual > > period - BUT there is still the idea of an untimed sequence of events > where > > the order is critical. There are also sequenced events when it comes to > > looking for stool microscopy, occult blood - but these are reported > > separately and really are administrative rather than of the > nature I will > > describe here. > > > > The best examples of this seem to occur in sampling - three samples of > CSF - > > the first, second and third - or shavings for histology looking > for depth > of > > tumour. There are more, such as respiratory function tests with > particular > > challenges - and timing is not an issue. These occur one after the other > but > > the sequence is the only thing that is important - not the time > - and time > > would probably be made up. The question is, how do we deal with this. I > > think we have two choices: > > > > 1. We recognise this is a sampling issue and there should be a label on > each > > sample which is transfered to the report - we have sample 1, 2 > and 3 with > > three separate microscopies and cultures in a single composition. This > would > > get around the confusion of trying to deal with this as a timing issue - > it > > would work for any sampling including location. We do not want > to compare > > these CSF samples in queries as equals but we would have some sort of > label > > associated. So, the sample label and order might be part of > this - in the > > request and then in the result. I guess this goes on at the moment. > > > > 2. We have a sequence idea in the event model, by using the offset but > > having 'sequence' as the unit rather than time. This would mean that > people > > did not have to enter spurious times in the data and name the event as > > Sample 1, which could be misleading. > > > > Comments? > > > > Cheers, Sam > > ____________________________________________ > > Dr Sam Heard > > Ocean Informatics, openEHR > > Co-Chair, EHR-SIG, HL7 > > Chair EHR IT-14-9-2, Standards Australia > > Hon. Senior Research Fellow, UCL, London > > > > 105 Rapid Creek Rd > > Rapid Creek NT 0810 > > > > Ph: +61 417 838 808 > > > > sam.heard at bigpond.com > > > > www.openEHR.org > > www.HL7.org > > __________________________________________ > > > > > > - > > If you have any questions about using this list, > > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org > > > > - > If you have any questions about using this list, > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
