Erik Sundvall wrote: > [ABSTRACT_CARE_ENTRY]^[CARE_ENTRY|data: ITEM] > [CARE_ENTRY]-[note:CARE_ENTRY Replaces both ADMIN_ENTRY and EVALUATION.] > [ABSTRACT_CARE_ENTRY]^[OBSERVATION|data: EVENTS;0..1 state: EVENTS] > [ABSTRACT_CARE_ENTRY]^[INSTRUCTION] > [ABSTRACT_CARE_ENTRY]^[ACTION]
Hi Erik, So the basic distinction between ADMIN_ENTRY and the clinical entry types would be lost. This feels strange to me, to be using the same CARE_ENTRY class for clinical and non-clinical entries. I'm particularly nervous that EVALUATION, the product of an important step in patient care, would disappear into the same class as administrative entries. Apart from not feeling nice when I look at a class diagram, mightn't this have the practical consequence of making it difficult to write AQL queries to search for clinical evaluations? Maybe not ... in AQL, you normally select from some archetype by its id, which includes the concept as well as the class ... so it would be select from openEHR-EHR-CARE_ENTRY.risk.v1, instead of select from openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.risk.v1. I'm not sure whether it's even possible to select from all evaluations without mentioning their concepts. - Peter
