RE: Use of RM:provider

[Bakke, Silje Ljosland]

Hi Bjørn and Ian!

The original use case for this code set was adverse reactions, but with the 
development of the national summary records, it’s been expanded for use with 
other kinds of critical information as specified below. This means that it 
needs to be used across the adverse reaction risk, problem/diagnosis and 
precaution archetypes, and I think therefore making a new cluster for use in 
the Extension slots is the best way to go forward.

@Ian: Yes, this information is mandatory for each entry. They’re generally few 
and seldom changed, so I don’t think there’s too much overhead from this:
[cid:image001.png@01D271A4.637D58A0]
Regards,
Silje

From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On 
Behalf Of Ian McNicoll
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 12:33 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
Subject: Re: Use of RM:provider

Hi Bjorn,

Thanks - it makes much more sense in the context of Adverse reaction but TBH I 
still doubt very much if this 'provenance' source metadata is captured or known 
reliably. I asked a couple of UK GP colleagues and they agreed. I would argue 
that this data a) often not available b) unreliable c) a pain in the neck to 
manage and d) not something you ever want to do decision support on.

If an allergy has been asserted, it needs to be regarded as positive and kick 
decision support into life, no matter how vague the provenance or potentially 
unreliable the witness.

But hey, that's what the extension slot in the archetype is for :)

Ian

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

[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download=0BzLo3mNUvbAjUmNWaFZYZlZ5djg=0BzLo3mNUvbAjRzZKc0JpUXl2SkRtMDJ0bkdUcUQxM2dqSVdrPQ]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.org<mailto:ian.mcnic...@openehr.org>
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 18 January 2017 at 10:24, Bjørn Næss <b...@dips.no<mailto:b...@dips.no>> 
wrote:
Hi
The specified terminology ( OID 2.16.578.1.12.4.1.7498 (Source of information) 
) is defined as  “options to specify the source of data for an allergic 
reaction” (my translation).

Which means this is specific for adverse reaction – and I think it should be 
archetyped to model this requirement. If it is only national then there should 
be some extension slots in the Archetypes – or we need some specialization of 
the Archetype to handle this.

Vennlig hilsen
Bjørn Næss
Produktansvarlig
DIPS ASA

Mobil +47 93 43 29 10<tel:+47%2093%2043%2029%2010>

Fra: openEHR-technical 
[mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>]
 På vegne av Ian McNicoll
Sendt: tirsdag 17. januar 2017 13.43
Til: For openEHR technical discussions 
<openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>>
Emne: Re: Use of RM:provider

Hi Thomas,

I'm not convinced as yet that this is a universally useful requirement, 
particularly as we carry much of this source/ provenance metadata already.

@Silje - are the GPs expected to add this extra information to every Entry in 
the summary? That seems like a significant burden, and actually in many cases 
unknowable.

Ian



Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859<tel:07752%20097859>
office +44 (0)1536 414994<tel:01536%20414994>
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com<mailto:i...@freshehr.com>
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download=0BzLo3mNUvbAjUmNWaFZYZlZ5djg=0BzLo3mNUvbAjRzZKc0JpUXl2SkRtMDJ0bkdUcUQxM2dqSVdrPQ]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.org<mailto:ian.mcnic...@openehr.org>
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 17 January 2017 at 12:34, Thomas Beale 
<thomas.be...@openehr.org<mailto:thomas.be...@openehr.org>> wrote:



Ideally there would be one or more classifiers at the ENTRY level, something 
that does not exist today. There are some others that we will include, e.g. 
relating to epistemic_status.

I would follow Ian's suggestion on the extension slot; it may be that the 
coding recorded there may need to be adjusted to a new place in relevant 
archetypes later on. Not ideal, but not a big problem either, assuming they are 
not used to create data before that is done.

Ian - do we have a related PR mooted for RM Release-1.0.4?

- thomas

On 17/01/2017 11:22, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
Thank you Thomas and Ian!

This is indeed a national requirement, and one where we do need to represent 
the chosen value in a coded text element. The background here is an entry in 
the critical information part of the national summary record, ie an adverse 
reaction, complication from

Re: Use of RM:provider

[Ian McNicoll]

Hi Bjorn,

Thanks - it makes much more sense in the context of Adverse reaction but
TBH I still doubt very much if this 'provenance' source metadata is
captured or known reliably. I asked a couple of UK GP colleagues and they
agreed. I would argue that this data a) often not available b) unreliable
c) a pain in the neck to manage and d) not something you ever want to do
decision support on.

If an allergy has been asserted, it needs to be regarded as positive and
kick decision support into life, no matter how vague the provenance or
potentially unreliable the witness.

But hey, that's what the extension slot in the archetype is for :)

Ian

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 18 January 2017 at 10:24, Bjørn Næss <b...@dips.no> wrote:

> Hi
>
> The specified terminology ( OID 2.16.578.1.12.4.1.7498 (Source of
> information) ) is defined as  “*options to specify the source of data for
> an allergic reaction*” (my translation).
>
>
>
> Which means this is specific for adverse reaction – and I think it should
> be archetyped to model this requirement. If it is only national then there
> should be some extension slots in the Archetypes – or we need some
> specialization of the Archetype to handle this.
>
>
>
> Vennlig hilsen
> Bjørn Næss
> Produktansvarlig
> DIPS ASA
>
> Mobil +47 93 43 29 10 <+47%2093%2043%2029%2010>
>
>
>
> *Fra:* openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-
> boun...@lists.openehr.org] *På vegne av* Ian McNicoll
> *Sendt:* tirsdag 17. januar 2017 13.43
> *Til:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.
> openehr.org>
> *Emne:* Re: Use of RM:provider
>
>
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
>
>
> I'm not convinced as yet that this is a universally useful requirement,
> particularly as we carry much of this source/ provenance metadata already.
>
>
>
> @Silje - are the GPs expected to add this extra information to every Entry
> in the summary? That seems like a significant burden, and actually in many
> cases unknowable.
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 <07752%20097859>
> office +44 (0)1536 414994 <01536%20414994>
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
>
>
> [image:
> https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download=0BzLo3mNUvbAjUmNWaFZYZlZ5djg=0BzLo3mNUvbAjRzZKc0JpUXl2SkRtMDJ0bkdUcUQxM2dqSVdrPQ]
>
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
>
> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
>
>
> On 17 January 2017 at 12:34, Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@openehr.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ideally there would be one or more classifiers at the ENTRY level,
> something that does not exist today. There are some others that we will
> include, e.g. relating to epistemic_status.
>
> I would follow Ian's suggestion on the extension slot; it may be that the
> coding recorded there may need to be adjusted to a new place in relevant
> archetypes later on. Not ideal, but not a big problem either, assuming they
> are not used to create data before that is done.
>
> Ian - do we have a related PR mooted for RM Release-1.0.4?
>
> - thomas
>
>
>
> On 17/01/2017 11:22, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
>
> Thank you Thomas and Ian!
>
>
>
> This is indeed a national requirement, and one where we do need to
> represent the chosen value in a coded text element. The background here is
> an entry in the critical information part of the national summary record,
> ie an adverse reaction, complication from anaesthesia, critical condition,
> ongoing treatment, implant, change of treatment routine, or infection. Each
> of these will be either an EVALUATION.adverse_reaction_risk,
> EVALUATION.problem_diagnosis, or EVALUATION.precaution. The patient’s GP
> normally records the information, and this code set is supposed to be used
> to specify where the GP got the information about each of the entries from.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> *Silje*
>
>
>
> *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-
> boun...@lists.openehr.org <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Ian McNicoll
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 17, 2017 11:36 AM
> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.
> openehr.org> <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Use of RM:p

SV: Use of RM:provider

[Bjørn Næss]

Hi
The specified terminology ( OID 2.16.578.1.12.4.1.7498 (Source of information) 
) is defined as  “options to specify the source of data for an allergic 
reaction” (my translation).

Which means this is specific for adverse reaction – and I think it should be 
archetyped to model this requirement. If it is only national then there should 
be some extension slots in the Archetypes – or we need some specialization of 
the Archetype to handle this.

Vennlig hilsen
Bjørn Næss
Produktansvarlig
DIPS ASA

Mobil +47 93 43 29 10<tel:+47%2093%2043%2029%2010>

Fra: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] På 
vegne av Ian McNicoll
Sendt: tirsdag 17. januar 2017 13.43
Til: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
Emne: Re: Use of RM:provider

Hi Thomas,

I'm not convinced as yet that this is a universally useful requirement, 
particularly as we carry much of this source/ provenance metadata already.

@Silje - are the GPs expected to add this extra information to every Entry in 
the summary? That seems like a significant burden, and actually in many cases 
unknowable.

Ian



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

[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download=0BzLo3mNUvbAjUmNWaFZYZlZ5djg=0BzLo3mNUvbAjRzZKc0JpUXl2SkRtMDJ0bkdUcUQxM2dqSVdrPQ]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.org<mailto:ian.mcnic...@openehr.org>
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 17 January 2017 at 12:34, Thomas Beale 
<thomas.be...@openehr.org<mailto:thomas.be...@openehr.org>> wrote:



Ideally there would be one or more classifiers at the ENTRY level, something 
that does not exist today. There are some others that we will include, e.g. 
relating to epistemic_status.

I would follow Ian's suggestion on the extension slot; it may be that the 
coding recorded there may need to be adjusted to a new place in relevant 
archetypes later on. Not ideal, but not a big problem either, assuming they are 
not used to create data before that is done.

Ian - do we have a related PR mooted for RM Release-1.0.4?

- thomas

On 17/01/2017 11:22, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
Thank you Thomas and Ian!

This is indeed a national requirement, and one where we do need to represent 
the chosen value in a coded text element. The background here is an entry in 
the critical information part of the national summary record, ie an adverse 
reaction, complication from anaesthesia, critical condition, ongoing treatment, 
implant, change of treatment routine, or infection. Each of these will be 
either an EVALUATION.adverse_reaction_risk, EVALUATION.problem_diagnosis, or 
EVALUATION.precaution. The patient’s GP normally records the information, and 
this code set is supposed to be used to specify where the GP got the 
information about each of the entries from.

Regards,
Silje

From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On 
Behalf Of Ian McNicoll
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 11:36 AM
To: For openEHR technical discussions 
<openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org><mailto:openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
Subject: Re: Use of RM:provider

Hi Silje,

I would agree with your and Thomas's assessment. This codeset does not really 
fit with provider, or indeed with any other RM attributes, although many but 
not all of these items could be calculated/ derived from existing attributes.

I guess this is part of a national requirement, and is a similar issue to the 
one we faced in Sweden, where the V-TIM standard was largely aligned with 
openEHR but had some extra specific metadata around Contsys-2 that needed to be 
captured.

This was exactly the purpose for the Extension slot that we are adding to new 
archetypes, so that would be my suggestion. Having said that, I do wonder about 
the purpose of this data -where is the value, over and above what is already 
captured by native openEHR RM. This feels like largely a derived set of data 
for reporting purposes

e,g,


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org<mailto: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: Use of RM:provider

[Ian McNicoll]

Hi Thomas,

I'm not convinced as yet that this is a universally useful requirement,
particularly as we carry much of this source/ provenance metadata already.

@Silje - are the GPs expected to add this extra information to every Entry
in the summary? That seems like a significant burden, and actually in many
cases unknowable.

Ian



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 17 January 2017 at 12:34, Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@openehr.org> wrote:

>
> Ideally there would be one or more classifiers at the ENTRY level,
> something that does not exist today. There are some others that we will
> include, e.g. relating to epistemic_status.
>
> I would follow Ian's suggestion on the extension slot; it may be that the
> coding recorded there may need to be adjusted to a new place in relevant
> archetypes later on. Not ideal, but not a big problem either, assuming they
> are not used to create data before that is done.
>
> Ian - do we have a related PR mooted for RM Release-1.0.4?
>
> - thomas
>
> On 17/01/2017 11:22, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
>
> Thank you Thomas and Ian!
>
>
>
> This is indeed a national requirement, and one where we do need to
> represent the chosen value in a coded text element. The background here is
> an entry in the critical information part of the national summary record,
> ie an adverse reaction, complication from anaesthesia, critical condition,
> ongoing treatment, implant, change of treatment routine, or infection. Each
> of these will be either an EVALUATION.adverse_reaction_risk,
> EVALUATION.problem_diagnosis, or EVALUATION.precaution. The patient’s GP
> normally records the information, and this code set is supposed to be used
> to specify where the GP got the information about each of the entries from.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> *Silje*
>
>
>
> *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-
> boun...@lists.openehr.org <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Ian McNicoll
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 17, 2017 11:36 AM
> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.
> openehr.org> <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Use of RM:provider
>
>
>
> Hi Silje,
>
>
>
> I would agree with your and Thomas's assessment. This codeset does not
> really fit with provider, or indeed with any other RM attributes, although
> many but not all of these items could be calculated/ derived from existing
> attributes.
>
>
>
> I guess this is part of a national requirement, and is a similar issue to
> the one we faced in Sweden, where the V-TIM standard was largely aligned
> with openEHR but had some extra specific metadata around Contsys-2 that
> needed to be captured.
>
>
>
> This was exactly the purpose for the Extension slot that we are adding to
> new archetypes, so that would be my suggestion. Having said that, I do
> wonder about the purpose of this data -where is the value, over and above
> what is already captured by native openEHR RM. This feels like largely a
> derived set of data for reporting purposes
>
> e,g,
>
>
>
> ___
> 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: Use of RM:provider

[Thomas Beale]

Ideally there would be one or more classifiers at the ENTRY level, 
something that does not exist today. There are some others that we will 
include, e.g. relating to epistemic_status.


I would follow Ian's suggestion on the extension slot; it may be that 
the coding recorded there may need to be adjusted to a new place in 
relevant archetypes later on. Not ideal, but not a big problem either, 
assuming they are not used to create data before that is done.


Ian - do we have a related PR mooted for RM Release-1.0.4?

- thomas


On 17/01/2017 11:22, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:


Thank you Thomas and Ian!

This is indeed a national requirement, and one where we do need to 
represent the chosen value in a coded text element. The background 
here is an entry in the critical information part of the national 
summary record, ie an adverse reaction, complication from anaesthesia, 
critical condition, ongoing treatment, implant, change of treatment 
routine, or infection. Each of these will be either an 
EVALUATION.adverse_reaction_risk, EVALUATION.problem_diagnosis, or 
EVALUATION.precaution. The patient’s GP normally records the 
information, and this code set is supposed to be used to specify where 
the GP got the information about each of the entries from.


Regards,
*Silje*

*From:*openEHR-technical 
[mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] *On Behalf Of 
*Ian McNicoll

*Sent:* Tuesday, January 17, 2017 11:36 AM
*To:* For openEHR technical discussions 
<openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>

*Subject:* Re: Use of RM:provider

Hi Silje,

I would agree with your and Thomas's assessment. This codeset does not 
really fit with provider, or indeed with any other RM attributes, 
although many but not all of these items could be calculated/ derived 
from existing attributes.


I guess this is part of a national requirement, and is a similar issue 
to the one we faced in Sweden, where the V-TIM standard was largely 
aligned with openEHR but had some extra specific metadata around 
Contsys-2 that needed to be captured.


This was exactly the purpose for the Extension slot that we are adding 
to new archetypes, so that would be my suggestion. Having said that, I 
do wonder about the purpose of this data -where is the value, over and 
above what is already captured by native openEHR RM. This feels like 
largely a derived set of data for reporting purposes


e,g,



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

RE: Use of RM:provider

[Bakke, Silje Ljosland]

Thank you Thomas and Ian!

This is indeed a national requirement, and one where we do need to represent 
the chosen value in a coded text element. The background here is an entry in 
the critical information part of the national summary record, ie an adverse 
reaction, complication from anaesthesia, critical condition, ongoing treatment, 
implant, change of treatment routine, or infection. Each of these will be 
either an EVALUATION.adverse_reaction_risk, EVALUATION.problem_diagnosis, or 
EVALUATION.precaution. The patient’s GP normally records the information, and 
this code set is supposed to be used to specify where the GP got the 
information about each of the entries from.

Regards,
Silje

From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On 
Behalf Of Ian McNicoll
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 11:36 AM
To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
Subject: Re: Use of RM:provider

Hi Silje,

I would agree with your and Thomas's assessment. This codeset does not really 
fit with provider, or indeed with any other RM attributes, although many but 
not all of these items could be calculated/ derived from existing attributes.

I guess this is part of a national requirement, and is a similar issue to the 
one we faced in Sweden, where the V-TIM standard was largely aligned with 
openEHR but had some extra specific metadata around Contsys-2 that needed to be 
captured.

This was exactly the purpose for the Extension slot that we are adding to new 
archetypes, so that would be my suggestion. Having said that, I do wonder about 
the purpose of this data -where is the value, over and above what is already 
captured by native openEHR RM. This feels like largely a derived set of data 
for reporting purposes

e,g,



1. Result of test/analysis

We know that from the archetype name

2.   Observed by treating physician

Captured potentially by provider

3.   Patient’s own information
Party = Self

4.   Information from next of kin
Party = carer

5.   Obtained from other records

Can use Feed_audit but practically very difficult to manage.

6.   Other

7.   Reported by responsible clinician

Captured by composer

Can you tell us more about the background?



Ian

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

[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download=0BzLo3mNUvbAjUmNWaFZYZlZ5djg=0BzLo3mNUvbAjRzZKc0JpUXl2SkRtMDJ0bkdUcUQxM2dqSVdrPQ]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.org<mailto:ian.mcnic...@openehr.org>
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 17 January 2017 at 10:14, Thomas Beale 
<thomas.be...@openehr.org<mailto:thomas.be...@openehr.org>> wrote:

Hi Silje,

there is no immediate equivalent of these codes, which have indirect 
equivalents, i.e.

  1.  Result = OBSERVATION; provider = lab; limited to certain archetypes; also 
comes under SOAP 'O' Heading
  2.  Observed by physician = OBSERVATION, provider = PARTY_IDENTIFIED 
(physician); limited to certain archetypes; also comes under SOAP 'O' Heading
  3.  Patient information = OBSERVATION, with provider = PARTY_SELF, possibly 
limited to specific archetypes ; also comes under SOAP 'S' heading
  4.  Info from next of kin = OBSERVATION, with provider = PARTY_IDENTIFIED 
(next of kin)
  5.  Info from other records = any ENTRY, with FEEDER_AUDIT set appropriately
  6.  ??
  7.  Reported by responsible clinician could be 1, 2, most EVALUATIONs, 
most/all INSTRUCTIONs some or many ACTIONs; provider = PARTY_IDENTIFIED 
(clinician)

I'd say it can be mostly set by using ENTRY.provider. 5 is a different thing - 
it's about provenance of data obtained from elsewhere. Presumably 6 means 'not 
any of 1-5 or 7'.

I'd also say it isn't a very well designed code-set, and I don't know what use 
it would be in real life...

- thomas

On 16/01/2017 13:14, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
Hi everyone,

I’ve got a problem about where to put non-identifying information about the 
source of information for an ENTRY. The value set we need to store is the code 
set identified by the OID 2.16.578.1.12.4.1.7498 (Source of information), as 
following:


1.   Result of test/analysis

2.   Observed by treating physician

3.   Patient’s own information

4.   Information from next of kin

5.   Obtained from other records

6.   Other

7.   Reported by responsible clinician

Our first hypothesis was that the reference model element “provider” should be 
used for this, but then someone pointed out that the “provider” should be an 
identifiable person or entity, and not just a generalised coded text like this. 
So, where should this information go, if not in RM:provider?

Kind regards,
Silje Ljosland Bakke

Information Architect, RN
Coordinator, National 

Re: Use of RM:provider

[Ian McNicoll]

Hi Silje,

I would agree with your and Thomas's assessment. This codeset does not
really fit with provider, or indeed with any other RM attributes, although
many but not all of these items could be calculated/ derived from existing
attributes.

I guess this is part of a national requirement, and is a similar issue to
the one we faced in Sweden, where the V-TIM standard was largely aligned
with openEHR but had some extra specific metadata around Contsys-2 that
needed to be captured.

This was exactly the purpose for the Extension slot that we are adding to
new archetypes, so that would be my suggestion. Having said that, I do
wonder about the purpose of this data -where is the value, over and above
what is already captured by native openEHR RM. This feels like largely a
derived set of data for reporting purposes

e,g,

1. Result of test/analysis

We know that from the archetype name

2.   Observed by treating physician

Captured potentially by provider

3.   Patient’s own information
Party = Self

4.   Information from next of kin
Party = carer

5.   Obtained from other records

Can use Feed_audit but practically very difficult to manage.

6.   Other

7.   Reported by responsible clinician

Captured by composer

Can you tell us more about the background?


Ian

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 17 January 2017 at 10:14, Thomas Beale  wrote:

> Hi Silje,
>
> there is no immediate equivalent of these codes, which have indirect
> equivalents, i.e.
>
>1. Result = OBSERVATION; provider = lab; limited to certain
>archetypes; also comes under SOAP 'O' Heading
>2. Observed by physician = OBSERVATION, provider = PARTY_IDENTIFIED
>(physician); limited to certain archetypes; also comes under SOAP 'O'
>Heading
>3. Patient information = OBSERVATION, with provider = PARTY_SELF,
>possibly limited to specific archetypes ; also comes under SOAP 'S' heading
>4. Info from next of kin = OBSERVATION, with provider =
>PARTY_IDENTIFIED (next of kin)
>5. Info from other records = any ENTRY, with FEEDER_AUDIT set
>appropriately
>6. ??
>7. Reported by responsible clinician could be 1, 2, most EVALUATIONs,
>most/all INSTRUCTIONs some or many ACTIONs; provider = PARTY_IDENTIFIED
>(clinician)
>
> I'd say it can be mostly set by using ENTRY.provider. 5 is a different
> thing - it's about provenance of data obtained from elsewhere. Presumably 6
> means 'not any of 1-5 or 7'.
>
> I'd also say it isn't a very well designed code-set, and I don't know what
> use it would be in real life...
>
> - thomas
>
> On 16/01/2017 13:14, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I’ve got a problem about where to put non-identifying information about
> the source of information for an ENTRY. The value set we need to store is
> the code set identified by the OID 2.16.578.1.12.4.1.7498 (Source of
> information), as following:
>
>
>
> 1.   Result of test/analysis
>
> 2.   Observed by treating physician
>
> 3.   Patient’s own information
>
> 4.   Information from next of kin
>
> 5.   Obtained from other records
>
> 6.   Other
>
> 7.   Reported by responsible clinician
>
>
>
> Our first hypothesis was that the reference model element “provider”
> should be used for this, but then someone pointed out that the “provider”
> should be an identifiable person or entity, and not just a generalised
> coded text like this. So, where should this information go, if not in
> RM:provider?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
> *Silje Ljosland Bakke*
>
>
>
> Information Architect, RN
>
> Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
> Nasjonal IKT HF
>
>
>
> ___
> 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: Use of RM:provider

[Thomas Beale]

Hi Silje,

there is no immediate equivalent of these codes, which have indirect 
equivalents, i.e.


1. Result = OBSERVATION; provider = lab; limited to certain archetypes;
   also comes under SOAP 'O' Heading
2. Observed by physician = OBSERVATION, provider = PARTY_IDENTIFIED
   (physician); limited to certain archetypes; also comes under SOAP
   'O' Heading
3. Patient information = OBSERVATION, with provider = PARTY_SELF,
   possibly limited to specific archetypes ; also comes under SOAP 'S'
   heading
4. Info from next of kin = OBSERVATION, with provider =
   PARTY_IDENTIFIED (next of kin)
5. Info from other records = any ENTRY, with FEEDER_AUDIT set appropriately
6. ??
7. Reported by responsible clinician could be 1, 2, most EVALUATIONs,
   most/all INSTRUCTIONs some or many ACTIONs; provider =
   PARTY_IDENTIFIED (clinician)

I'd say it can be mostly set by using ENTRY.provider. 5 is a different 
thing - it's about provenance of data obtained from elsewhere. 
Presumably 6 means 'not any of 1-5 or 7'.


I'd also say it isn't a very well designed code-set, and I don't know 
what use it would be in real life...


- thomas


On 16/01/2017 13:14, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:


Hi everyone,

I’ve got a problem about where to put non-identifying information 
about the source of information for an ENTRY. The value set we need to 
store is the code set identified by the OID 2.16.578.1.12.4.1.7498 
(Source of information), as following:


1.Result of test/analysis

2.Observed by treating physician

3.Patient’s own information

4.Information from next of kin

5.Obtained from other records

6.Other

7.Reported by responsible clinician

Our first hypothesis was that the reference model element “provider” 
should be used for this, but then someone pointed out that the 
“provider” should be an identifiable person or entity, and not just a 
generalised coded text like this. So, where should this information 
go, if not in RM:provider?


Kind regards,
*Silje Ljosland Bakke*

**

Information Architect, RN

Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
Nasjonal IKT HF



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

Use of RM:provider

[Bakke, Silje Ljosland]

Hi everyone,

I've got a problem about where to put non-identifying information about the 
source of information for an ENTRY. The value set we need to store is the code 
set identified by the OID 2.16.578.1.12.4.1.7498 (Source of information), as 
following:


1.   Result of test/analysis

2.   Observed by treating physician

3.   Patient's own information

4.   Information from next of kin

5.   Obtained from other records

6.   Other

7.   Reported by responsible clinician

Our first hypothesis was that the reference model element "provider" should be 
used for this, but then someone pointed out that the "provider" should be an 
identifiable person or entity, and not just a generalised coded text like this. 
So, where should this information go, if not in RM:provider?

Kind regards,
Silje Ljosland Bakke

Information Architect, RN
Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
Nasjonal IKT HF
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