On 10/05/2011 08:03, Athanassios I. Hatzis, PhD wrote: > > According to HL7 RIM there are four core classes > > Entity, Role, Participation Act > > Then one can relate healthcare domain concepts such as visit, > admission, patient, health care professional, health care > organization, observation, procedure based on these core classes. > > If there are standard, common, general, archetypes then obviously one > can use them in such a way to model clinical process ! > > I am not sure what is the equivalent of HL7 RIM core classes in > openEHR to model clinical process and how one can use archetypes in > that respect. >
the key classes in openEHR relating to the clinical ordering process are Instruction and Action. There is a standardised state machine to track the status of any kind of order. If you look carefully, you will notice PARTICIPATION classes where they are needed. Entity and Role are in the openEHR demographic model. > Athanassios > > PS: > > Athanassios: Why not implementing these standard archetypes with > classes-objects at programming level, if we agree the names of the > attributes (features) ? > > Thomas: Because this is exactly what we want to get away from; that is > the road to disaster - it is the 1980s approach where everything in > the domain becomes a class and/or a relational table. > > Fortunately there is a better approach that is emerging, whereby these > classes/XSDs/etc can be generated from templates, in such a way that > the data created can always be converted back to canonical form. > > Athanassios: I simply cannot imagine how one can escape completely > from defining the overall picture at conceptual (programming level), > i.e. defining standard, common, general "archetypes" (core classes > depending on the problem to use). I suppose in many cases one would > like to build a completely new clinical information systems based on > these core classes and I expect highly complex business logic behind > that to capture both online and offline, dynamic and static, clinical, > administrative processes. So If there is indeed such a different way > to view software engineering as you mentioned, I think it will have to > become more understandable and common across developer communities > including RIMBAA and others. > there are quite a few openEHR implementations; none of them rely on expressing archetypes or templates as programming classes. Instead, they use the RM classes and use the archetypes as a validating and querying tool. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110510/bf0215c5/attachment.html>
