I got it, when I said standardizing diagnosis you might thought of your specific implementation / experience. But I was talking about the strategy, not the implementation.
The strategy can be good and implementations fail miserably, is not a problem of the strategy :) As I said, primary coding is the worst way of implementing this, should not be recommended by any literature, and software vendors / organizations / govt imposing that should be held responsible for bad implementations. On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Karsten Hilbert <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 :) > > > > > I was mainly talking about the first, which is standard in German > ambulatory care. > > Karsten > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- > technical_lists.openehr.org > -- Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez [email protected] +598 99 043 145 skype: cabolabs <http://cabolabs.com/> http://www.cabolabs.com https://cloudehrserver.com Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj>
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
