Hi, My personal thoughts.
In general the normal range is dependent on the type of lab method and specific lab and valid in a particular context (male, female, old, young, time, etc) So the information can be provided by the lab only. They know (should know) what all the normal ranges in all relevant contexts are. Of course for the purpose of providing lab results archetypes will be produced. In these lab-reporting archetypes there must be a spot where this type of information can be provided. IT techies think many times that absolute figures are very important. In general trends provide more useful information than single absolute figures Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, arts Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252 544896 M: +31 653 108732 -- work -- Gerard Freriks, arts TNO ICT Brassersplein 2 Delft, the Netherlands T: +31 15 2857105 M: +31 653 108732 Gerard.Freriks at TNO.nl On 31-aug-2006, at 19:20, Thomas Beale wrote: >> > technically there is nothing stopping it, but it would almost > always be the wrong thing to do, since the normal range of a > Quantity is there to carry the actual normal range for the > particular analyte in question, for the lab, and for the patient. > So if it is serum sodium, the range will still depend on all of > these things, and cannot be archetyped. The intention is not to use > archetypes to standardise these values, but to provide a place for > labs to put the specific normal range values that applied for each > analyte, for the particular patient, and remembering that each lab > has slightly different instrument settings. > > Probably what you are looking for is the normal range reference > data - like what you see in a pathology book, or what any physician > knows for all of the main vital signs and other measurable things. > We consider this to be reference information, like terminology, but > for quantified values. While much of it is published in paper form, > as far as I know there is no recognised way to represent > quantitative range data in a standard computable form (i.e. in the > way that you can get Snomed or ICD10 in a computable format). This > is needed. But archetypes are not the place to standardise this - > archetypes are about defining content structures, not domain > reference knowledge. > > - thomas beale -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060831/7cba880b/attachment.html>
