Hi, I'm not sure if this is a correct approach. What in the example you call a function can be in fact a full Action that is being done. That is, if the function is so relevant that you can even assign a dedicated participant to it, it should be also enough important to be represented and documented as an individual entry of the EHR: coded, with start and end times, etc. If the case is that a complex procedure is composed by other simpler procedures, then we should document and link all of them.
I see the case of Silje from a different perspective. What she is asking is if we can document the participants of each Element inside the Entry. So far this is not possible, as Entries have been always seen as a whole clinical statement, with all participants assigned to that level. 2016-11-23 20:47 GMT+01:00 Ian McNicoll <i...@freshehr.com>: > Hi both > > Agreed. > > Role = pathologist > Function = macroscopic histopath examination. > > Ian. > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 at 17:32, Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@openehr.org> > wrote: > >> Hi Silje, >> >> The PARTICIPATION class >> <http://www.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/docs/common/common.html#_overview_3> >> has a codable attribute 'function' for this purpose (calling it 'function' >> rather than 'role' came from 13606). It may be that you want to state a >> 'role' as well, i.e. to say that a certain *kind of person* is required, >> and then use function to state the actual function that person is supposed >> to do in the particular activity in question. >> I would have expected 'function' to be sufficient for your example - just >> use 2 x other_participations on the OBSERVATION. >> >> An example of needing both could be something like: >> >> - role = nurse >> - function = foley catheterisation >> >> Currently 'role' is only known in the demographic model, i.e. on the >> other side of the PARTY_PROXY.external_ref link. It may make sense to add a >> role attribute to PARTICIPATION at some point if we need to distinguish the >> type of person (qualification) from what they do in the activity. >> >> - thomas >> >> On 23/11/2016 06:29, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> We’re wondering if it’s possible to specify what the role was of each >> instance of Participation in an OBSERVATION archetype? For instance in a >> histopathology result the macroscopic description will often be performed >> by a different person from the microscopic description. We’re thinking both >> will be listed using participation, but we need to be able to document >> which person did what. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> *Silje Ljosland Bakke* >> >> >> >> Information Architect, RN >> >> Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes >> National ICT Norway >> >> Tel. +47 40203298 >> >> Web: http://arketyper.no / Twitter: @arketyper_no >> <https://twitter.com/arketyper_no> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing >> listopenEHR-technical@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- >> technical_lists.openehr.org > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- > technical_lists.openehr.org > -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Informática Biomédica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3ª planta Valencia – 46022 (España)
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
