Re: ACTION performer?

2015-08-31 Thread Thomas Beale 


Can I suggest that a PR is raised for this 
?


- thomas

On 27/08/2015 21:40, Ian McNicoll wrote:

Hi Silje,

I agree that ACTION.performer would be a useful addition (optional) to 
the RM. For now, I model performer as a participation. 
ACTION.other_participations inherits ENTRY.other_participations


http://www.openehr.org/releases/trunk/UML/#Diagrams___18_1_83e026d_1433173757197_893618_10673

The basic structure of participation is

performer: PARTY_PROXY
function : e.g "Perfomer" (text)
mode:  "face-to-face communication" (a fixed internal oepnEHR code)

A snippet of openEHR JSON (this applies the participation at 
composition level but the internal structure of participation is the same

"ctx/participation_name:0": "Dr. Marcus Johnson",
 "ctx/participation_function:0": "Performer",
 "ctx/participation_mode:0": "face-to-face communication",
 "ctx/participation_id:0": "1345678",

"ctx/participation_name:0": "Dr. Marcus Johnson",
 "ctx/participation_function:0": "Performer",
 "ctx/participation_mode:0": "face-to-face communication",
 "ctx/participation_id:0": "1345678",

   "otherParticipations": [
{
"function": {
"value": "Oncologist"
},
"mode": {
"definingCode": {
"codeString": "216",
"terminologyId": {
"value": "openehr"
}
},
"value": "face-to-face 
communication"

},
"performer": {
"externalRef": {
"id": {
"scheme": 
"2.16.840.1.113883.2.1.4.3",

"value": "1345678"
},
"namespace": "NHS-UK",
"type": "ANY"
},
"identifiers": [],
"name": "Dr. Marcus Johnson"
},
"time": null
},

Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com 
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org 


Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 27 August 2015 at 10:00, Bakke, Silje Ljosland 
> wrote:


Hi all,

According to Norwegian law, the performer or main performer of a
procedure has to be explicitly recorded. The main performer is not
necessarily the same person who records the action, so the
COMPOSITION.composer RM object may not be used for this. We can’t
seem to find any complete description of the ACTION.participations
RM object, but if it’s possible to specify the role of the
participant there, this may possibly be used. Or will we have to
explicitly model this in the ACTION.procedure archetype?

Any thoughts?

Kind regards,
*Silje Ljosland Bakke*

**

Information Architect, RN

Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
National ICT Norway

Tel. +47 40203298 

Web: http://arketyper.no / Twitter:
@arketyper_no 


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org


http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org




___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

RE: Archetype versioning: Skipping v1 and going straight to v2?

2015-08-31 Thread Bakke, Silje Ljosland 
Agreed.

Regards,
Silje

From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On 
Behalf Of Bjørn Næss
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 12:21 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: SV: Archetype versioning: Skipping v1 and going straight to v2?

I also think the version number should not be changed if the review and 
approval process introduse no changes in the structure or semantic of the 
archetype.

Incrementing the version when no changes are introduced just makes things 
confusing and increase complexity.



Sendt fra min Samsung-enhet


 Opprinnelig melding 
Fra: "Bakke, Silje Ljosland" 
>
Dato: 28.08.2015 15.05 (GMT+01:00)
Til: 
openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
Emne: Archetype versioning: Skipping v1 and going straight to v2?
Hi everyone,

We've bumped into an issue related to versioning of archetypes and implementing 
non-published versions:

Several implementation projects are using archetypes from the 
http://arketyper.no CKM, many of which are still drafts or under review since 
the CKM switch to v0 for unpublished archetypes was done only recently, and the 
publicly available tools all use v1 by default, lots of functionality has 
already been made using unpublished v1 versions of archetypes, and will be 
deployed this autumn. Of course, when reviewed, these archetypes may go through 
drastic changes, and this will be a problem once other projects at a later time 
try to use archetypes which by then may have been published as v1.

One of our proposed solutions is to skip v1 for these archetypes and go 
straight to v2 when publishing them. Is this practically possible, and will it 
have any adverse consequences?

Kind regards,
Silje Ljosland Bakke

Information Architect, RN
Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
National ICT Norway
Tel. +47 40203298
Web: http://arketyper.no / Twitter: 
@arketyper_no

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org