Hi everybody I know CDA which requires *all* information to be in human-readable, textual form (Level 1). Optionally there can be references to machine-readable entries (Level 3). This design makes sure no information is disclosed from a clinician that views the document only with as simple XSLT-transformed XHTML.
I must admit I didn't quite understand the use case. <snip> > This does mimic the CDA approach but does have the added benefit that the > displayed information can be structured as well (a requirement from our > customers who want to mix the textural content and structured medication > orders (ie not duplicate these in the textural display). > <snip> Maybe you could explain it a bit further. But in general I feel - probably similar to Ian and Gerard - it is not a good idea to bring view-related stuff into an archetype. Thus, I wouldn't call it "display" and "non-display". However, think the there is a gowing need to have a possibility to easily use archetypes together with HL7 CDA. As Stefan also pointed out, many national ehealth programs have opted to use this part of HL7v3! This is a chance for openEHR as it is way ahead of the HL7 template initiative with respect to clinician involvement, which is crucial. So maybe, we could discuss whether to create an CDA-compatibility SECTION archetype with a Level1 and a Level3 section. Cheers, Thilo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080818/2315171c/attachment.html>
