Hi, I'm not a pathologist. But was a GP.
As GP I'm not interested in an arbitrary classification. What is minimally necessary are: the value, the units of measurement and the normal range as used in that lab for that measurement at that time. What is handy (optional) and only for signalling a human reader, and NOT for computer semantic processing, are: a Flag that a value is out of range, and a comment/advice/interpretation provided by the lab. "Value" is not always a series of digits. It can be an ordinal. It can be text. Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, arts Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252 544896 M: +31 653 108732 On 20-sep-2006, at 0:27, Heath Frankel wrote: > So, it appears that we have no pathologists on the list to comment > on the > standardisation of these codes. I guess all I can suggest is that > these are > standard codes as per the HL7 V2.x standard but the interpretation > of using > them is unlikely to be but it is just that we are looking the > capture and > not loose in the translation from HL7 message to openEHR. Having > said that, > in Australia it is common practice by labs to use three levels of > abnormality (i.e. HHH & LLL(. > > Would an alternate approach be to include an additional element in the > Archetype to store this abnormality flag rather than including it > in the > DV_ORDERED? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060920/d4e495da/attachment.html>
