On 02-09-16 14:28, Daniel Karlsson wrote:
Bert,
if I understand your issue correctly, I believe that some sort of
"code index" is needed in openEHR persistence implementations. This
"code index" would link all codes used with the (full) path to the
node where the code is used. There are several considerations to be
made when implementing such an index, including making certain that
the information context is clear (e.g. a code in an exclusion
archetype vs. one in the problem archetype), which other pieces are
needed to build the index, like archetypes and templates used in the
path, which codes to index (archetype- and template-bound codes as
well as coded values). I assume the brilliant people on the openEHR
lists knows more about such things than I do :)
Cheers,
Daniel
You are right, Daniel, that is exactly why I discuss it, to get an
opinion from the brilliant people on the list. But even brilliant people
can have blind spots or not so strong moments. So it is always good to
keep thinking for yourself. ;-)
I don't know if such a "code index" is what I am looking for. What will
you put in it? The SNOMED-code representing the clinical idea of the
archetype? And what if the archetype only represents a part of the
clinical idea?
Maybe I did not explain well my position. It is not that I am doing a
proposal for a solution. Even the problem I have is not completely clear
to me. Problem definition is often halfway the answer.
Part of the problem is that we are getting an enormous wealth of
clinical information, also in the Netherlands this is available.
I don't see how the OpenEHR concepts help us using this potential. And
that will become a serious problem. It just is not enough to have a
concept ID for every clinical term.
best regards,
Bert
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
