Hi Bjorn, Thanks - it makes much more sense in the context of Adverse reaction but TBH I still doubt very much if this 'provenance' source metadata is captured or known reliably. I asked a couple of UK GP colleagues and they agreed. I would argue that this data a) often not available b) unreliable c) a pain in the neck to manage and d) not something you ever want to do decision support on.
If an allergy has been asserted, it needs to be regarded as positive and kick decision support into life, no matter how vague the provenance or potentially unreliable the witness. But hey, that's what the extension slot in the archetype is for :) Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: i...@freshehr.com twitter: @ianmcnicoll Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 18 January 2017 at 10:24, Bjørn Næss <b...@dips.no> wrote: > Hi > > The specified terminology ( OID 2.16.578.1.12.4.1.7498 (Source of > information) ) is defined as “*options to specify the source of data for > an allergic reaction*” (my translation). > > > > Which means this is specific for adverse reaction – and I think it should > be archetyped to model this requirement. If it is only national then there > should be some extension slots in the Archetypes – or we need some > specialization of the Archetype to handle this. > > > > Vennlig hilsen > Bjørn Næss > Produktansvarlig > DIPS ASA > > Mobil +47 93 43 29 10 <+47%2093%2043%2029%2010> > > > > *Fra:* openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical- > boun...@lists.openehr.org] *På vegne av* Ian McNicoll > *Sendt:* tirsdag 17. januar 2017 13.43 > *Til:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists. > openehr.org> > *Emne:* Re: Use of RM:provider > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > I'm not convinced as yet that this is a universally useful requirement, > particularly as we carry much of this source/ provenance metadata already. > > > > @Silje - are the GPs expected to add this extra information to every Entry > in the summary? That seems like a significant burden, and actually in many > cases unknowable. > > > > Ian > > > > > > > Dr Ian McNicoll > mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 <07752%20097859> > office +44 (0)1536 414994 <01536%20414994> > skype: ianmcnicoll > email: i...@freshehr.com > twitter: @ianmcnicoll > > > > [image: > https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BzLo3mNUvbAjUmNWaFZYZlZ5djg&revid=0BzLo3mNUvbAjRzZKc0JpUXl2SkRtMDJ0bkdUcUQxM2dqSVdrPQ] > > Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org > > Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. > Director, HANDIHealth CIC > Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > > > > On 17 January 2017 at 12:34, Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@openehr.org> > wrote: > > > > Ideally there would be one or more classifiers at the ENTRY level, > something that does not exist today. There are some others that we will > include, e.g. relating to epistemic_status. > > I would follow Ian's suggestion on the extension slot; it may be that the > coding recorded there may need to be adjusted to a new place in relevant > archetypes later on. Not ideal, but not a big problem either, assuming they > are not used to create data before that is done. > > Ian - do we have a related PR mooted for RM Release-1.0.4? > > - thomas > > > > On 17/01/2017 11:22, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote: > > Thank you Thomas and Ian! > > > > This is indeed a national requirement, and one where we do need to > represent the chosen value in a coded text element. The background here is > an entry in the critical information part of the national summary record, > ie an adverse reaction, complication from anaesthesia, critical condition, > ongoing treatment, implant, change of treatment routine, or infection. Each > of these will be either an EVALUATION.adverse_reaction_risk, > EVALUATION.problem_diagnosis, or EVALUATION.precaution. The patient’s GP > normally records the information, and this code set is supposed to be used > to specify where the GP got the information about each of the entries from. > > > > Regards, > *Silje* > > > > *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical- > boun...@lists.openehr.org <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>] *On > Behalf Of *Ian McNicoll > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 17, 2017 11:36 AM > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists. > openehr.org> <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> > *Subject:* Re: Use of RM:provider > > > > Hi Silje, > > > > I would agree with your and Thomas's assessment. This codeset does not > really fit with provider, or indeed with any other RM attributes, although > many but not all of these items could be calculated/ derived from existing > attributes. > > > > I guess this is part of a national requirement, and is a similar issue to > the one we faced in Sweden, where the V-TIM standard was largely aligned > with openEHR but had some extra specific metadata around Contsys-2 that > needed to be captured. > > > > This was exactly the purpose for the Extension slot that we are adding to > new archetypes, so that would be my suggestion. Having said that, I do > wonder about the purpose of this data -where is the value, over and above > what is already captured by native openEHR RM. This feels like largely a > derived set of data for reporting purposes > > e,g, > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
