Damon This is important to consider....
>>I believe that DSS >>groups will be a major player in determining the final archetypes that are >>agreed at a high level. >> > It seems to me that in the same way, archetypes will have great impact on > the development of future EHR-compatible instrument interface standards. If > instruments and instrument interfaces are required to provide information > that is complete enough to be integrated into the EHR, then additional > context information will need to be appended as the measurement values are > recorded. > > Lets assume that a typical existing instrument interface was not designed to > produce shareable EHR extracts - a safe bet in my view. Result: missing > context info. So to ensure compatibility either, It is not critical that the instrument give all the context as you point out below. > > - the instrument interface is revised by the instrument vendor to satisfy > the associated archetypes > OR > - an adapter on the EHR side of the interface adds the required context > information prior to submitting it to the EHR-S proper. (not very nice) I guess you know this from experience.....we would see the clinician setting up the monitoring - this is the only context I think that would not come from the machine - the protocol information and measurements should be enough then. > OR > - some compromise is reached on the completeness of the archetype. > (dangerous) > > OK - maybe I am exaggerating - but it would be interesting to pick a > "legacy" instrument standard (say crusty old ASTM 1394-91) and see how it > holds up. If you know something well, lets use that. I would not see an extract as the way to go - but it would be appropriate if a whole session was captured in another environment and then sent to the EHR - perhaps in a catheter lab. The norm for instruments would be to create one or two (or three) entries. Pulse oximetry is a good example. Sam > Damon > > > - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
