Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote: > In een bericht met de datum 21-8-2005 14:43:17 West-Europa > (zomertijd), schrijft Thomas.Beale at OceanInformatics.biz: > > > > Some coding systems must remain stable. E.g. in the format of clinical > instruments with specific clinimetric or psychometric characteristics, > examples include Barthel, Apgar score, already to some extend archetyped. > The answer categories and value sets here are themselves standardized. > These must be hard coded into the archetype to enforce the compatibility.
that is of course possible and intended when you are talking about clinical categories. > Here the intelligent semantic interoperability comes into vision: the > clinical and evidence base itself enforces specific semantics > (variable, values, codes) and thus requires the data be stored and > exchanged in only this format. There is no optionality for string > here, and also enumeration cannot be done on the fly. > > See examples of not yet archetypes on www.zorginformatiemodel.nl. > These 90 or so instruments and observation sets will become available > in English (we work on request by request base). This set of models will be of great use, but we will need to extract the clinical aspects and remove all the hl7 message-related specifics - then we will have the basis of interoperable clinical models the whole community can work with. > Here we will achieve no mileage in archetyping the code-set but > probably lightyears :-) do you have a ruler?-) - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
