Silje, It may be true that it is sufficient for your use case.
In principle there are two methods to deal with information in the EHR: -1- In the COMPOSITION the data is referenced by a code/url because it is in a shared Repository -2- In the COMPOSITION all data needs to be made available explicitly, when used in a message/document where the receiver has no access to the shared Repository. This means that the generic Archetype needs to support these two possibilities where in the Template for a particukar use case one of the methods is implemented Gerard > On 24 Nov 2016, at 10:35, Bakke, Silje Ljosland > <silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no> wrote: > > 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 > > <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 > > <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 > <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 > <mailto: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 > <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 > <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 > <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.ibime.upv.es/> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner <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 > <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 > <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
