Rodrigo Filgueira wrote: > Sam, > > Thanks for your answer. > I'm not using archetypes for GUI definitions, but I thought adding new > readings to observations could only be done by versioning a > composition they were a part-of. > This, I believe would force us to create compositions for everything. the Composition is indeed the "commit container" but archetypes and content modification is done at any level of granularity. So clinical archetypes typically are defined for the Entry level, i.e. for subtypes. If you are modifying an existing Composition, fine-grained archetypes are used at runtime to control the content modification. > > The other issues which led us to my previous question, are more of a > clinical or medico-legal origin, > I thought that each column in the physiological control form should be > a composition, because it needed to be versionable (in order to audit > changes) and should be "signed" by the nurse, but (now I see) this > does not mean it is a "signed document" as you state for compositions. No - that is unlikely. You can easily have a fine-grained item, e.g. a History of Events inside an Observation (archetype example: http://oceaninformatics.biz/archetypes/openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.laboratory-glucose.v1.html or http://oceaninformatics.biz/archetypes/openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.blood_pressure.v1.html) (UML model: http://www.openehr.org/uml/Browsable/_9_0_76d0249_1109157527311_729550_7234Report.html). Successive Events can be added to the same logical Observation, over multiple versions. However, this may or may not be a good clinical model of what you are trying to record, or a correct representation of the clinical workflow. Sam will provide better feedback on this.
- thomas
