Hi, thanks for your replies everyone! I think the function attribute is sufficient for our use case, as the focus is on what the person did. Their profession/credentials can be provided by an external knowledge base.
BTW, I tried looking this up using the UML link from the CKM, which led me here: http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.1/reference-models/openEHR/UML/HTML/Browsable/_9_0_76d0249_1109066119163_537311_2210Report.html. I then tried to follow the List<PARTICIPATION> link to http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.1/reference-models/openEHR/UML/HTML/Browsable/_9_5_76d0249_1118914287896_171737_4134Report.html, which gave me a 404. Mvh. Silje From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Ian McNicoll Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 9:49 AM To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> Subject: Re: RM Participations name/role? Hi David, I think your approach is perfectly valid but I suspect would impose an overhead of complexity that is not always justified or necessary. In the original lab system the kind of individual entry tracking you suggest is probably required to facilitate workflow but by the time it hits the ehr, that level of granularity is not needed IMO. Another good example of the way the health data is summarised and compressed as it passes through the system. Both approaches are valid IMO. Ian On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 at 08:18, David Moner <dam...@gmail.com<mailto:dam...@gmail.com>> wrote: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B47%2040203298> Web: http://arketyper.no<http://arketyper.no/> / Twitter: @arketyper_no<https://twitter.com/arketyper_no> _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
