Hi Grahame, The concern about FEEDER_AUDIT related to its use in outgoing service requests e.g. within referrals / lab requests etc. This is technically possible but against the intentions within the specifications as Thomas suggested in his eralier reply. Personally I would be happy to see the specifications change to allow FEEDER_AUDIT used in this way.
Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical analyst,?Ocean Informatics, UK openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org On 18 January 2011 20:30, Grahame Grieve <grahame at kestral.com.au> wrote: > Hi Peter, Tom > > thanks > >> Just take care to use FEEDER_AUDIT for ids generated in external systems, >> rather than assigned within the openEHR system, including by users of apps >> talking directly to the openEHR system. > > I'm not sure which way to parse that sentence > > Generally, about FEEDER_AUDIT, it's something I had missed, so I'll go > and review it, but how does it manifest in the archetype editor? > > Ian: > >> Using FEEDER_AUDIT was actually discussed as part of deciding how best >> to handle Placer and Filler Order numbers in lab tests etc . The >> problem we have is that we also need to add these identifiers to >> outgoing order /referral messages (and track those within the EHR), >> and FEEDER_AUDIT was deemed unsuitable for this purpose. > > because the identifiers weren't explicitly identified? Can you say why it > was deemed unsuitable? > > thanks > Grahame > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
