I won't contribute much to this discussion, except to say that the 'problem' here is /duplication/ of information - that is, the same information occurring in a document or being created in a system in two different ways, usually narrative and structured, but not always this combination. CDA is always constructed of narrative, with optional structured content which in theory duplicates the narrative content, or may be a subset of it. The problem for clinicians therefore is to get rid of the duplicate stuff for display.
So the need to display or not is a consequence of the duplication which is the underlying problem. Perhaps a better name for the 2 parts would be 'primary' and 'duplicate' or 'alternative rendition' or similar. - thomas Thilo Schuler wrote: > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > -- *Thomas Beale Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics <http://www.oceaninformatics.com/>* Chair Architectural Review Board, /open/EHR Foundation <http://www.openehr.org/> Honorary Research Fellow, University College London <http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/> * *
