In een bericht met de datum 14-9-2006 22:22:42 West-Europa (zomertijd), schrijft Thomas.Beale at OceanInformatics.biz:
> 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_8 > 72559_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... Yes, this is indeed what we need, I do like b also very much, have not thought of this in this way due we use the moodcode dynamics and care plan R-MIM. Key in that is that we do what you express in b: explain that something (an observation) from the guideline goes into the careplan because the patient meets the criteria for it and the clinician determines to follow this. Moving to 'independent' modeling with the new tools will sort all these clinical materials out and allow both expression of knowledge and of workflow and of the result of resoning :-) thanks again, William -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060914/2a91336d/attachment.html>
