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 <karsten.hilb...@gmx.net>
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
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-
> technical_lists.openehr.org
>



-- 
Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com
+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
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Reply via email to