Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote: > In een bericht met de datum 14-9-2006 20:33:51 West-Europa > (zomertijd), schrijft Thomas.Beale at OceanInformatics.biz: > > >> Hi William, >> >> Since I am not 100% sure of the details of what you want to do, I won't >> make any claims yet, but it seems to me that the archetype "description" >> section (i.e. the meta-data in an archetype) is the place where you can >> reference online and other resources (e.g. guidelines, medline content) >> used to build or otherwise related to the archetype. See here for this >> information being displayed in an archetype (it happens that in this >> archetype the "resources" fields are empty, but they are there) - >> http://svn.openehr.org/ref_impl_eiffel/TRUNK/apps/doc/images/description_1.png >> >> >> . The meta-data design is based on CEN and CDA meta-data specifications. >> >> Looking at the latest version of the Archetype Editor, it seems that the >> resources fields cannot be edited directly yet - this functionality >> needs to be added. Would this address the need in this area? >> >> As for the "goal of an instrument" - I am not sure what you mean - can >> you explain a bit further? >> >> - thomas > > > I know Thomas that we are almost getting there: > > It needs indeed to be editable at least when entering the first > version and then updatable with versions. > > The goal or purpose is the reason why a clinician would use the data, > instrument, observation in first place: clinical knowledge. E.g. apgar > score must be measured after birth of a baby 1 min, 5 min, 10 min. It > is often very obvious, but the more we move into detailed clinical > area's the less obvisous is gets and such functionality allows to > trace back the clinical knowledge. there are two levels of expression of clinical knowledge, guidelines, evidence etc that we can use, namely a1) guidelines etc that are mentioned in an archetype, and inform the design of the archetype. This can be done as I described. In this case, the guideline or other knowledge reference is the same for all data built from the archetype. a2) resources that are referenced on a per-archetype basis, but not in the archetype, rather they are referenced from the archetype classification ontology that indexes archetypes b) guidelines referenced in data, i.e. on a per instance basis. On the model you see here: http://www.openehr.org/uml/release-1.0/Browsable/_9_0_76d0249_1109249648736_872559_12384Report.html the class CARE_ENTRY has the attributes "protocol" (how / why did I create this clinical statement/observation/whatever), "guideline_id" that enables the referencing of guideline that caused this Entry to be created (e.g. maybe some guideline told the doc to measure the BP and also ask questions about smoking); ENTRY.workflow_id may also be relevant, for Entries created due to workflow execution.
I would think these go close to supporting today's requirements in this area, although I realise we cannot predict the requirements of the future... > > One upcoming project will be to set up the real specified criteria for > defining the background knowledge of what in next stepp will become an > archetype / synonym. > > I have spoken with Sam, Heath and Sebastian Garde on how we can do this. > > Just give us the time to manage it (requirements). yes, of course - this is clearly an emerging area for the medical people....maybe you will have more requirements for the models one day... - thomas
