Grahame Grieve wrote: > The first is that in the archetype design we came up with (still be > posed > on CKM yet), there's a lot of identifiers present. These identifiers > are > required to deal with the interoperability aspects of the imaging exam > report (i.e. PACS reigsters images with RIS, RIS provides report to > EHR, EHR tracks identifiers so it can provide links to RIS/PACS > resources as required). In particular, in several places there's slots > for various DICOM UIDs. To me, these are IT issues, not clinical > issues, so they shouldn't be part of the archetype design (on the > basis > that archetypes are *clinica* knowledge)- but I do know that we > absolutely need these identifiers. Is there a policy about this? > Note that I ask this question with wider issues about whether IT and > interoperability concerns should be explicitly represented in > archetypes.
Hi Grahame, I believe what you're saying is right. This sounds exactly like what the FEEDER_AUDIT class was designed for. See the the Common IM spec. Each LOCATABLE has an attribute called 'feeder_audit', of type FEEDER_AUDIT. Within the FEEDER_AUDIT class, there are lists of DV_IDENTIFIER where systems can store ids generated by the originating system and other systems. The FEEDER_AUDIT also has an attribute called 'original_content', where an image or a reference to the image would be stored. Because COMPOSITION inherits from LOCATABLE, an obvious place to set the 'feeder_audit' attribute might be on the composition. You could of course prefer to set it on, say, the imaging exam OBSERVATION. This is an excellent example of something that is already catered for in the reference model, and so it probably shouldn't be modelled in archetypes. Unfortunately, current tools don't make the feeder_audit attribute visible visible to modellers, so they are likely to "reinvent the wheel", unaware that it's already available. (They're designing "wheels" for the "car", but the car already has wheels.) This is a problem to modellers: an important part of the model that they are designing is to all intents and purposes invisible to them in the archetype. - Peter
