On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 10:55:47AM +0000, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
> I've hesitated to participate in this discussion, but I think I have a couple
> of points to add now, as I think there are two different problems being
> discussed here:
> 1. The original problem, which in my opinion is how and where to store
> reference ranges for clinical observations such as for instance blood
> pressure. These reference ranges are often based on clinical research, and
> may change with time as new research emerges. In my opinion these shouldn't
> be stored with the original observation data, but can (when needed) be stored
> with any interpretation where the data is used to reach a conclusion, for
> example a symptom, diagnosis or even just an instruction. The reference
> ranges that are current at any point in time however, should be stored and
> accessed from a knowledge base outside the EHR, as they don't relate to the
> data of a specific patient. However, that knowledge base may well be linked
> to specific archetypes and archetype elements to facilitate its usage, for
> example to the systolic, diastolic and position elements of the blood
> pressure archetype, if the reference ranges vary based on the position of the
> patient at the time of measurement.
> 2. The problem of reference ranges that are intricately bound to
> specific observations and their methods, such as lab results. These should
> be, and are commonly, stored with the observations in the EHR because the
> details of analytic method and other factors that affect them are far too
> complex to include in the EHR data. The RM attributes "normal_range" and
> "other_reference_ranges" (and "normal_status") of the Quantity data type are
> well suited for these reference ranges.
That about wraps it up.
Except that I was of the impression that the original
question was more about 2) rather than 1).
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
openEHR-technical mailing list