I would put it the other way around: it can only be done with
structured, controlled subsets, that retain hierarchy from the original
terminology, remove unneeded codes, and do a few other tricks (adding
non-coding 'group' concepts to help guide the user). This has to be done
using smart tree controls, or anything that logically works as a
tree-based choosing tool.
No flat lists ;)
- thomas
On 13/03/2018 18:33, Pablo Pazos wrote:
It is a very very very bad practice to ask clinicians to code!
Standardizing diagnosis is a very different thing than asking
clinicians to code, the first is the strategy, the second is one
possible, and bad, implementation.
There are 3 ways of "coding" that I know of: 1. primary coding (ask
clinicians and other clinical users to code directly), 2. secondary
coding (users record information, a team of specialists do the coding
later), 3. assisted coding (software helps users to code, and there
are many ways of doing this, from NLP to GUI wizards).
But I'm not sure if Karsten was talking about this, let's wait :)
--
Thomas Beale
Principal, Ars Semantica <http://www.arssemantica.com>
Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain Healthcare
<https://intermountainhealthcare.org/>
Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation
<http://www.openehr.org>
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
<http://www.bcs.org/category/6044>
Health IT blog <http://wolandscat.net/> | Culture blog
<http://wolandsothercat.net/>
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
