This reminds me a thing. Would be useful to have at ADL level something like postconditions? (In your example, something stating how to obtain or validate MBP from available values). I think this falls into "knowledge" level.
2009/7/25 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>: > Bert Verhees wrote: > > yes - but to do this, they need to be working with templates. > Archetypes on their own don't make sense as direct data-capture models. > > > Thomas, I wonder why this is, maybe you can explain this or point to an > explanation. > > > Archetypes act as a way to standardise the *possible* data points that could > be captured about some topic, in any possible context (i.e. type of patient, > type of clinic etc). So for example, the blood pressure archetype (see > http://www.openehr.org/knowledge/OKM.html#showArchetype_1013.1.130) contains > the following data points in the 'data' part: > > systolic pressure (SP) > diastolic pressure (DP) > mean arterial pressure (MAP) - perfusion pressure used by anaesthetists > pulse pressure (PP) - difference between SP and DP > comment > > Now, in actual real contexts, the things that can be used in a meaningful > way are one of the following: > > SP, DP // the usual one > MAP - which is related by a formula to SP & DP (see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_arterial_pressure) > PP - either computed from SP - DP, or measured directly by some devices > > MAP will never be needed in a normal GP or nursing context, and PP won't > usually be either, although I believe it is becoming moreso, because the PP > history is recognised as an indicator of some problems. The point is, you > will (probably) never create any data set (such as a form or a message) that > corresponds to a particular clinical event (such as GP visit, etc) that > contains all of these. Instead, you will make a template, that contains the > SP and DP, possbly some other BP archetype items, and also a bunch of other > items from other archetypes. This latter combination of items is what is > being recorded in the specific situation. For another context, e.g. > emergency department admission, a different combination of items will be > recorded. Both could easily contain common elements from the archetypes they > use; this is why archetypes exist - to standardise the semantic definitions > of the information items; templates exist to put them together (sometimes > with further constraints) for specific use cases. > > One reason that this is not always clear is that there are some archetypes > that would normally be used in their entirety in the template, e.g. Apgar, > Barthel, some lab results and so on (although even then, the protocol > information may or may not be included). > > hope this clarifies > > - thomas beale > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > -- Diego Bosc? Tom?s <diebosto at fis.upv.es> <yampeku at gmail.com> Grupo IBIME Instituto ITACA - Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia Acceso B Edificio 8G Camino Vera s/n 46022 VALENCIA (Spain) tel: +34 963 875 277 http://ibime.upv.es
