Have 'all' sit together?
'All' never write one good novel.
'All' do not invent E=MC2
'All' do not design and fill a coding system such as SNOMED with all the codes
'All' will use semantic interoperability artefacts such as SNOMED
'All' by using it will validate and maintain the codes in for
Dear Karsten, all,
We are at the moment running a working group that defines a pathology
report for Austria, as a means to exchange results across
organisations. We explicitly do not cover the detailed workflows that
lead to the report. Tomorrow there will be a meeting on this topic in
Germany
Hello,
that?s what CKM and the openEHR community are for!
Regards
Jussara R?tzsch
Md, MSc
Director, OpenEHR Foundation
Owner, Giant Global Graph ehealth Solutions
http://www.giantglobalgraph.com.br
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Stefan Sauermann
sauermann at technikum-wien.at wrote:
-Original Message-
From: openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Ian McNicoll
Sent: Monday, 20 August 2012 5:07 a.m.
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
Subject: Re: Yet another OBSERVATION vs. EVALUATION issue
I am
Op 18 aug. 2012, om 10:41 heeft Gerard Freriks het volgende geschreven:
On 17 Aug 2012, at 19:38, Thomas Beale wrote:
Decisions of medical users do not depend on the fact that an item is
classified as observation or evaluation.
maybe not so much on how it is classified, but on
As I said it?s a matter of context.
Jussara R?tzsch
Md, MSc
Director, OpenEHR Foundation
Owner, Giant Global Graph ehealth Solutions
http://www.giantglobalgraph.com.br
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Stef Verlinden stef at vivici.nl wrote:
Op 18 aug. 2012, om 10:41 heeft Gerard Freriks
I agree that we need a practical solution and that we can't change (at least
not overnight) what has been going on for ages.
As an intermediate solution, it would be great if it is possible to see on
which facts a diagnosis is based (or a differential diagnose is rejected) and
which protocol
and panic attacks/hyper ventilation. These were my inferences about the
process inside the patient system.
Only one was true and had to found out via trial and error diagnostics
and trial treatments. I fear that the best we can do in most circumstances
(as GP) is to code 'Reasons for ..' and
It must be clear that one is able to define these terms.
But others do the same and do it differently.
Examples:
Symptom:
1- an observable as percieved and communicated by a patient
2- an observable fact about the patient (system)
3- an observable fact about the patient system deemed relevant by
Diagnosis is a fuzzy term.
It is used and mis-used and creates a lot of confusions.
A 'diagnosis' many time does not describe a disease process inside the patient
system, but is a way to collect or spend money or to explain a next round of
diagnostics or treatments.
All terms like these need
In a way, having a 'diagnosis' archetype (whatever it is today, and
whatever it evolves into) does do away with trying to define diagnosis -
by providing its own extensional definition of data points that some
clinical modellers have agreed are useful to collect. The 'meaning' of
the word
On 17 Aug 2012, at 19:38, Thomas Beale wrote:
Decisions of medical users do not depend on the fact that an item is
classified as observation or evaluation.
maybe not so much on how it is classified, but on whether it can be trusted
or not. Erroneous conclusions can be drawn from
Hi Stefan
The scope of openEHR is the health record. With that in mind things are
a little simpler
On 17/08/2012 11:35 PM, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
This is deeply philosophic, but if you want it you get it:
;)
The fact that a smoker within a given population develops cancer is an
20 something years of medical practice learned me to be humble and do not
use the word Diagnosis too lightly:
...
Example: I know that within one day I suspected the patient to have
shortness of breath because of: asthma, pulmonary infection, cardiac failure
and
panic attacks/hyper
Good.
lets ditch the term 'Diagnosis' completely.
Or use it only when we are -as you write- scientifically certain.
And use other terms. We (EN13606 Association) prefer the 'Reasons for ...' type
of terms, because that is what they do in real life.
They are the excuses to do something (or
lets ditch the term 'Diagnosis' completely.
Or use it only when we are -as you write- scientifically certain.
And use other terms. We (EN13606 Association) prefer the 'Reasons for ...'
type of terms, because that is what they do in real life.
They are the excuses to do something (or nothing);
Yet we use this term a lot, as a hypothese or as a differential diagnosis, or
even as a past diagnose, not forget to billing purposes and DRG calculus. Don't
know how you could avoid it here in Brazil, where ICD 10 is used to code
everything, actually it is the only classification used in
Hi Stefan,
On 17/08/2012 15:05, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
This is deeply philosophic, but if you want it you get it:
;)
The fact that a smoker within a given population develops cancer is an
observation.
The fact that n smokers within a given population develop cancer is an
observation.
Shinji,
In the EN13606 Association in our SIAMS document we developed a generic
semantic patterns that drives all artefacts,
One of the sub-patterns is to document a semi-quantitative result.
This semi-quantitative result is to document all 'severity' type of things.
Always these
-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Koray
Atalag
Sent: Tuesday, 14 August 2012 2:28 PM
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
Subject: Yet another OBSERVATION vs. EVALUATION issue
Hi,
There's a CVD risk assessment tool I'm working on which prepopulates
clinical info from GP
RISK is a complex thing.
Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk#ISO31000:2009_Risk_Management_Standard
Only looking at temporal aspects:
The risk to die within 10 years when you are 100 years old is HIGH
The risk to die within 10 years when you are 30 years old is LOW
The risk to die within
Hi Gerald,
Completely agree with controversy in RISK evaluation.
I have similar experience on SEVERITY evaluation.
openEHR-EHR-problem-diagnosis archetype has severity metrics,
but it does not fit for various evaluation criteria.
I specialized to have a 'severity detail' slot to apply various
: openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Heather Leslie
Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2012 2:50 p.m.
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
Subject: RE: Yet another OBSERVATION vs. EVALUATION issue
Hi Koray,
Some of the latest
Dear Koray,
In EN13606 Association we think that all artefacts must be derived from
(specialised) from one generic pattern.
The draft document SIAMS defines this, plus more.
All artefacts inherit this generic pattern.
It is just one change of one attribute in the pattern that changes it from
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:10:47AM +0200, Stef Verlinden wrote:
Personallly i still think that any RISK or SEVERITY
evaluation is completely worthless
You may want to define worth to put this into context.
unless that evaluation AT
contains a detailed protocol describing the criteria
One comment.
From: openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Koray
Atalag
Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2012 6:43 PM
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
Subject: RE: Yet another OBSERVATION vs. EVALUATION issue
Hi Heather
Hi,
There's a CVD risk assessment tool I'm working on which prepopulates clinical
info from GP software. This includes diagnoses, smoking status and checklist
for certain medications. Note that some of the underlying info might be coming
from previous visits (e.g. problem list type) but also
Good afternoon,
I use MedTech32 almost everyday. The recent CVD risk assessment is
incorporated with diabetes risk assessment but not 3 month diabetic
check-up one. CVD risk assessment actually adjust risk and recall
patient for 3 monthly, 6 monthly, annual or every 5 yrs, best on the
data
On 14/08/2012 05:28, Koray Atalag wrote:
Hi,
There's a CVD risk assessment tool I'm working on which prepopulates
clinical info from GP software. This includes diagnoses, smoking
status and checklist for certain medications. Note that some of the
underlying info might be coming from
The risk itself is an Evaluation and can be used to store data about the risk.
The procedure/method to do the calculation is not an artefact that will be
stored, but referred to in the Evaluation.
Using a RM and an AOM it must be possible to specify in a Composition type of
artefact the
Just out of the Risk analysis box see eg. ISO 14971:
Took me some time to figure it out, so I share it just in case:
Risk consists of:
- A hazard
- a probability that this hazard will typically occur
- the severity of the harm that this hazard will cause on humans or
non-human subjects
-
Risk consists of:
- A hazard
- a probability that this hazard will typically occur
- the severity of the harm that this hazard will cause on humans or non-human
subjects
- probability together with severity will describe the risk
Should we add the temporal factor?
E.g. the chances in a
On 14/08/2012 15:43, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
Just out of the Risk analysis box see eg. ISO 14971:
Took me some time to figure it out, so I share it just in case:
Risk consists of:
- A hazard
- a probability that this hazard will typically occur
- the severity of the harm that this hazard
33 matches
Mail list logo
