Dear Sam, What you say is correct. In clinical practice it is also possible that the same sample is sent to two labs for the same test and the protocol followed by both the labs is same so is the est method and the unit of reporting. The sample date and time is the same. These two results have to be viewed and stored. Thus there should be a method to store and retrieve values where the date and time of sample and the test type and method and the UOM is the same needs to be available. Eg Blood Sugar reporting unit and test method are the same so is the date and time of the sample. Bhupinder
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Heard" <[email protected]> To: "Bhupinder Singh" <bobdog at sancharnet.in>; "Openehr-Technical" <openehr-technical at openehr.org> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 6:36 PM Subject: RE: Pathology requirements TIMED MEASUREMENTS > 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
