Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote: > > > So the 'standard' approach is: > > one patient with > one or more diseases > and none to many associated problems / complaints > and none to many associated nursing diagnoses / allied health problems > and one to many activities for the disease (s) > and one to many activities for the associated problems (the minimum, > so always one has to be there is to monitor the onset of a potential > problem) > and one to many activities for the associated nursing diagnoses / > allied health problems. > > Definitely this is is with respect to workflow a difficult non-linear > process of care delivery and of changes of the disease(s) and the > different problem situations. > Thus we need to be able to have a system that can track what these > changes are, and what the status of this set of mixed activities is. > We must also be able to exchange this in the multitude of systems > available in health care that will last for several decades. > > I am pretty sure that I can deal with these complex situations in HL7 > v3 speak. I have not seen examples of these complex care situations in > 13606 speak since that is missing examples from health care with this > respect. Hi William,
the workflow aspects of the above need workflow languages and service models to support multi-enterprise choreography. There are guideline and workflow languages (not provided by HL7 or openEHR), and the beginnings of models for choreography coming from WfMC and other places. I can't think of much HL7 provides in this area. But the main question with respect to workflow is: what needs to be automated? Humans are far better at performing real-world tasks than machines, due to their ability to handle exceptional cases. Mostly what we need to solve right now is: - clinical content - simple workflow around medication prescription and management - some basic workflow around admission, discharge, referral Other workflows are wonderful problems for computer science theses, but mostly are done better and more economically by human beings at the moment. If we just get clinical content solved, that will be a huge step. > > Perhaps we need to work more from the clincial perspective and > determine the requirements and from there to the technical bits. exactly... - thomas
