Archetype rules (invariants) in openEHR RM?
Dario Liberman wrote: Well, In this case, I recommend to add a kind of actor, that may be de aggregation of other actors. The administrator may decide which capabilities or roles this new actor may have, since it doesn't necessarily need to have anything in common with the aggregation of the capabilities of each of the actors it aggregates. I have added this to a list of change requests, but there is more thinking to be done - we may need to differentiate between workgroups which exist in and of themselves, e.g. cardiology team (?), versus groups which are formed around a patient, e.g. a diabetic care team, which is a particualr grouping of people likely to exist only for a particular patient (i.e. they are not constituted as any formal team). Would the latter be identified as a group? Where? We have the concept of PARTY, ACTOR etc in the demographic model for things which exist regardless of context, and PARTICIPATION for context-specific participations of PARTYs in activities around the patient. - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
Archetype rules (invariants) in openEHR RM?
Tom I think work Unit or Work Group is important as long as it is linked to an organisation - a person might work on a ward, an outpatient department and in the cardiology team. As far as the referral is concerned - it could be to a work unit if that is available and has a system for dealing with referrals. Clearly an institution would limit the parties that will accept referrals. Cheers, Sam -Original Message- From: owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org [mailto:owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org]On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 10:34 PM To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: Re: Archetype rules (invariants) in openEHR RM? Ahmad Risk wrote: Please let me enetr this dialogue. In the UK, a GP might refer a patient to a named Cardiologist. However, that referral, upon arrival at the hospital, might be handled by the Cardiology Team of that cardiologist. One might argue here that the 'team' is really a department, albeit, a unit within the Cardiology department. Equally, the referral from the originating GP could be directed at the cardilogy department without specifying the named provider. there are two questions here: a) who is delivering the care - in this case, it seems to be the team. b) who is legally responsible for the care, which as far as I know, must always be an individual, or a registered health care provider. Both of these potentially need to be recorded. If we want to identify teams or departments, we may need a new kind of party, or else we generalise the notion of ORGANISATION to something like GROUP, where a group just means more than 1 person with a common purpose - or something in common - what would it be, in general? thoughts? - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
Archetype rules (invariants) in openEHR RM?
Dario Liberman wrote: Hello! Nice site redesign you have got at openEHR.org :-) I have taken a look at the Demographic R.M. 1.2 I was wondering if it a Party may be also a team or group of people. currently a PARTY can be an ACTOR - viz PERSON, ORGANISATION, or AGENT, or else it is a ROLE. I have thought a little bit about teams etc, but have not investigated the use cases. In mosts cases medico-legally it is required that an individual be identified in any health activity. This demographic model is in its early stages, and we expect that it will need some changes to allow for a general typology of PARTYs. For example: Lets say that a clinician working at a given institution wants to prescribe the patient to have an interview with the group-Nuero-5 ( one of the groups of neurologists that analyze the need of internment), he may have a kind of contact search engine in which he finds parties, in this case not a person or organization but a group of people called 'group-Neuro-5'. If not, how does this example fit into the picture? Hm - currently in all the situations we know of (e.g. Australia, sitautions in Europe to my knowledge, north america) - the identified party would have to be a registered provider - either they are a GP or else it is an organisation such as a clinic or hospital. How do you see a group of neurologists which is not a provider organisation - can you describe what its status in the health system is in more detail? - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
Archetype rules (invariants) in openEHR RM?
Hello! Nice site redesign you have got at openEHR.org :-) I have taken a look at the Demographic R.M. 1.2 I was wondering if it a Party may be also a team or group of people. For example: Lets say that a clinician working at a given institution wants to prescribe the patient to have an interview with the group-Nuero-5 ( one of the groups of neurologists that analyze the need of internment), he may have a kind of contact search engine in which he finds parties, in this case not a person or organization but a group of people called 'group-Neuro-5'. If not, how does this example fit into the picture? Thanks, Dario Liberman. liberman at ineba.net - Original Message - From: Thomas Beale tho...@deepthought.com.au To: Dario Liberman liberman at ineba.net Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 22:21 Subject: Re: Archetype rules (invariants) in openEHR RM? Dear Dario, the new openEHR site is online at http://www.openEHR.org. If you join and subscribe to the lists, you will be kept up to date on all openEHR acitivities, which have taken over from GEHR. This is where we want to get discussions going on technical and clinical aspects of archetypes, uses of Galen and so on. We hope you will contribute. regards, - thomas beale Dario Liberman wrote: Hello Thomas, After reading the pdf you suggested (section 6) I asked myself if you think there can be any way to use OpenGalen server for the concepts being represented by the arquetypes in an integrated fashion, so to achieve a strong interrelationship between arquetypes, having then, even more power of dynamism than with general object oriented polymorphism mechanics. I say OpenGalen, but you can choose any thesaurus server of concepts interrelated by means of a Description Logic model. Best regards, Dario Liberman. PD: Of course, in order to be willing to achieve such a thing, instead of 'chaining by archetype id' we should be 'chaining by concept id' having the archetypes be individuals giving a representation for instantiating the concept. - Original Message - From: Thomas Beale thomas at deepthought.com.au To: Gavin Brelstaff gjb at crs4.it Cc: openehr-technical at openehr.org Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 20:40 Subject: Re: Archetype rules (invariants) in openEHR RM? Gavin Brelstaff wrote: How do we generate archetype rules to provide constraints internally within archetypes. We would like to use such rules to constrain data at it's point of entry on the client. We already generate handler code (in Javascript) to ensure the data-type and range constraints are valid. what we did in the Eiffel implementation of GEHR was: - when an XML archetype is read from the database, it is turned into Eiffel objects. - for information creation, the archetype in memory has its create_default() routine called; this creates an initial data instance (say of a blood pressure of whatever). Each part of such an instance (which is of course a network of instances) is connected to a relevant part of the archetype (also a network of instances in memory) - Data modification commences by the users on the data instances, with each routine which causes a change calling a a corresponding validating routine on the archetype. If this routine returns true, the modification is allowed; else it returns false, with an error message whcih can be used on the screen (e.g. systolic blood pressue must be between 0 and 500). - Changes proceed in this fashion until the user is satisfied and hits the commit button, which writes the information to the db. A detailed explanation of what happens is given at: http://www.gehr.org/technical/kernel_architecture/kernel_architecture.html (see section 6 of the documents). In openEHR, we will do the same thing (in variaous languages - not jsut Eiffel) but it will be more systematic. hope this helps, - thomas beale I can find no mention of any archetype rules in the openEHR Reference Model nor in the Design Principles document. In fact, all I can now find is the example of an invariant on page 25 of Thomas Beale's Archetypes report (I've the version issued 21 /Aug/01). Am I missing something obvious or have archetype rules been omitted, delayed from consideration? If so why? I do hope you can help. -- .. Deep Thought Informatics Pty Ltd mailto:thomas at deepthought.com.au openEHR - http://www.openEHR.org openEHR drafts - http://www.deepthought.com.au/health/openEHR/openEHR.html Archetype Methodology - http://www.deepthought.com.au/it/archetypes.html Community Informatics - http://www.deepthought.com.au/ci/rii/Output/mainTOC.html .. - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
Archetype rules (invariants) in openEHR RM?
Gavin Brelstaff wrote: How do we generate archetype rules to provide constraints internally within archetypes. We would like to use such rules to constrain data at it's point of entry on the client. We already generate handler code (in Javascript) to ensure the data-type and range constraints are valid. what we did in the Eiffel implementation of GEHR was: - when an XML archetype is read from the database, it is turned into Eiffel objects. - for information creation, the archetype in memory has its create_default() routine called; this creates an initial data instance (say of a blood pressure of whatever). Each part of such an instance (which is of course a network of instances) is connected to a relevant part of the archetype (also a network of instances in memory) - Data modification commences by the users on the data instances, with each routine which causes a change calling a a corresponding validating routine on the archetype. If this routine returns true, the modification is allowed; else it returns false, with an error message whcih can be used on the screen (e.g. systolic blood pressue must be between 0 and 500). - Changes proceed in this fashion until the user is satisfied and hits the commit button, which writes the information to the db. A detailed explanation of what happens is given at: http://www.gehr.org/technical/kernel_architecture/kernel_architecture.html (see section 6 of the documents). In openEHR, we will do the same thing (in variaous languages - not jsut Eiffel) but it will be more systematic. hope this helps, - thomas beale I can find no mention of any archetype rules in the openEHR Reference Model nor in the Design Principles document. In fact, all I can now find is the example of an invariant on page 25 of Thomas Beale's Archetypes report (I've the version issued 21 /Aug/01). Am I missing something obvious or have archetype rules been omitted, delayed from consideration? If so why? I do hope you can help. -- .. Deep Thought Informatics Pty Ltd mailto:thomas at deepthought.com.au openEHR - http://www.openEHR.org openEHR drafts - http://www.deepthought.com.au/health/openEHR/openEHR.html Archetype Methodology - http://www.deepthought.com.au/it/archetypes.html Community Informatics - http://www.deepthought.com.au/ci/rii/Output/mainTOC.html .. - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
