Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 [email protected]
Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 5 Jun 2017, at 10:48, William Goossen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Heather, > > the key difference is that the assessment scales have a scientific > validation, leading to clinimetric data, often for populations, but e.g. > Apgar and Barthell are also reliable for individual follow up measures. Correct. But in essence it is a set of questions and answers plus a set of rules to aggregate the collected data. > > a simple question, answer, even with some total score, does usually not have > such evidence base. I agree that in the data / semantic code representation > in a detailed clinical model it is not different. As you write yourself. > > Hence, also Grahame's nonsense comment on the value of semantic > interoperability of such things. It is for user groups of stakeholders to > determine the clinical and scientific merits of such instruments not a > technical implementer. > Yes. Local players must decide what they need. But there is an interoperability issue, as well. It is very likely that for research many years from now we need to be able to interpret the old data. In other words we need interoperability over longer periods of time, or better interpretability over longer periods of time. > > vriendelijke groeten, with kind regards, > > dr. William Goossen
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
