I agree this ‘definition’ problem is outside of the scope of this list.
But since you misused terms, I reacted.
In your example in words:
- Observation 'Serum sodium = X’, 'Normal associated and stored Normal range
for adult males:: Lower=A, Higher=B
- Evaluation 1 'X is abnormal and lower than Lower bound A’
- Evaluation 2 'Patient System has a state of Hyponatrenomy’
- Evaluation 3 ‘Patient System has problem item on the Problem list Y’
- Evaluation 4 ‘Patient System has risk to have as possible diagnosis Z1, Z2,
- Evaluation N ‘Patient has diagnosis Z4’
I agree that just one single Observation is not enough to safely diagnose the
More is needed than that.
2801 CA Gouda
> On 2 Mar 2018, at 17:29, Bakke, Silje Ljosland
> <silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no> wrote:
> We’re getting into territory that maybe doesn’t belong in the technical list
> anymore, but anyway. <>
> I suspect this may be a disagreement in choice of words. I’m talking about
> the difference between observational and evaluative statements. The lab
> result is observational and what I called “diagnosis” is evaluative. The
> point I was trying to make is that these are different in nature, whether we
> choose to call the evaluative statement “problem” or “diagnosis”. The
> S-sodium lab result by itself doesn’t necessarily mean that the patient
> actually had a real hyponatremia, though I see that my previous statement
> could be interpreted as such. Maybe the patient had simultaneous
> hyperlipidemia or hyperproteinemia? The assessment of the larger picture is
> of course what leads to the evaluative statement.
> The overall point I was trying to make was that you can’t expect to be able
> to computationally draw conclusions about the health of a patient based only
> on reference ranges for single observational statements; you also need a
> human (or perhaps in the future a machine?) to assess a larger picture.
> I wish you all a nice weekend! J
openEHR-technical mailing list