On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:10:29AM +0100, Stef Verlinden wrote:
In the Dutch archetype for 'medication' I'm trying to make, I would
like to attach several terminologies to the same medicine. In the
Netherlands we use the G-standard which comprises of many sub
terminologies. For instance
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:17:09PM +0200, Thilo Schuler wrote:
This is a bit problematic as there is one subconcept Urine dipstick test
finding (finding) - 417597005 mentions urine explicitly while the others
don't. Clinically, to my knowledge, in 99,99% urine will be tested with a
dipstick.
I don't think that sushi is a snomed concept.
sushi;
- allergic reaction to
- poisoning by
?
Karsten
--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal f?r Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
Gerard Freriks wrote:
Observation: Systolic pressure: No, Yes
Observation: Systolic pressure: 0, +, ++, +++, , +
I want to meet the GP who measures BP like this ;-)
Not sure about the +, ++ but No/Yes may well occur in a
reanimation situation.
Karsten
--
GMX startet
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 05:09:37AM -0300, BeatrizdeFariaLeao wrote:
That was exactly my point. ICD + LOINC can solve many problems. For many
African countries and for Brazil ICD is mandatory.
Same for Germany.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:53:51PM +0200, Thilo Schuler wrote:
I am not so sure about the above dipstick example. For what I know
dipsticks measure certain pH intervals (I guess that is what you mean
by similar graduation) plus it provides certain qualitative
information (nitrite,
In particular a requirement is that an author, while developing, is able
to have a versioning structure that allows going back to earlier versions, or
work on improvements while not changing an existing version directly.
This sounds like there should be integration with something like
/integrate an external tool that would make proper use of
versioning
a lot easier, particularly for users not yet familiar with that sort of thing.
Karsten Hilbert
--
Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger geh?rt? Der kann`s mit allen:
http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:48:17PM +1100, Andrew Patterson wrote:
Now I realise this is pretty complex - for instance these are
some of the medication strengths strings listed for some Australian
medications..
0.3mg/mL (0.03%)
0.4mg-10.0mg-2.0mg/mL
0.54g-1.28g/10mL
0.375mg
1% w/w
1
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 07:39:37PM +0300, Athanassios I. Hatzis wrote:
I thought it would be easy to find a suitable schema from health standards
organizations and open EHR/EMR software to migrate my data but this is
exactly the point where I realized that schemas I studied where either too
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:32:36AM -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
The approach you outline which reuses archetypes and templates from EHR
models resonates as a logical way to tackle this.
Though it was redesigned to use CDA in order to hopefully gain
acceptance with vendors EGADSS was originally
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:05:39AM +0200, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
http://egadss.sourceforge.net/
are you aware of any deliverables that can be downloaded and
test-driven ? I haven't been able to find much by browsing
the site(s) and googling.
The one egadds.jar I did find said
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 05:12:54PM -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
Did you try the big green Download button here? :-)
I did :-)
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
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
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
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);
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
This is a good idea.Unfortunately we only store members names and
email addresses as part of the list. In many cases the email address
is unhelpful in determining the location of the member. There are
currently 428 members on the clinical list. So far we have resisted
the idea of a more
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:30:17PM +1000, Grahame Grieve wrote:
If you are recording an event - perhaps a procedure - and you have
complications to record, are these problem/diagnoses?
That depends on clinical judgment in each case.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ gpg-keyserver.de
E167 67FD
How to do X in a Problem Oriented Record
If one poses this question one has not understood one
fundamental aspect of ALL medical records pertaining to a
single patient (as opposed to epidemiological records):
_All_ data is _always_ problem oriented. Any record keeping
system must support
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 02:11:43PM -0300, pablo pazos wrote:
Imaging is a little tricky. It is ok to have that info in
the protocol section because the result of an imaging test is
not the image, is the report. The image gives context for the
report but IMO the important thing is the report.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 07:04:32AM +0100, WILLIAM R4C wrote:
If you say urineanalysis POCT. What does the POCT stand for and mean?
Likely
Point
Of
Care
Testing
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 07:19:19AM +, Heather Leslie wrote:
> The notion of a patient being alive is only possible while they are in the
> room with you. As soon as they walk out the door they could drop dead.
>
> So this adds a further complication. From a pure modelling point of view:
>
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:27:18AM +, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
> We're working on requirements for labs results, and have
> bumped into a potential problem. Some results are
> textual/non-quantitative in nature, for example
> "positive/negative", "+/++/+++",
>
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 01:23:00PM +0100, Ian McNicoll wrote:
> If a result is expressed as normal/ abnormal or high/normal/low,
> surely the 'normalcy range' is self-defining.
>
> If there is a need for the lab to assert some kind of textual normalcy
> rangeThe 'reference range guidance'
> Yes. That is how this should work but I'm still not sure exactly what the
> requirement is.
>
> Can you give a couple of examples of the result values and associated
> reference ranges?
Assuming I correctly understood the OP I think an example would be:
Blood in urine dipstick:
reference
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Bert Verhees wrote:
> Important is the push-effect. I read the openehr mailing list because it is
> pushed to me. Else I would not read it.
> Sorry for that, but my days are very filled up, it is easy to not do
> something.
> I am a member of some forums,
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:43:33AM +0100, GF wrote:
> Any item in an archetype potentially has:
> - an ad-hoc, locally defined, display name
> - an official canonical name in a specific language domain
> - and, in order to disambiguate it, an unique code in
> - a specific
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:31:41AM -0300, Thomas Beale wrote:
> On 15/07/2017 15:36, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> >
> > Receiving systems may decide (or not) to group single-analyte
> > results one way or another (typically the way they were
> > ordered ...) but that
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:42:13AM -0300, Thomas Beale wrote:
> I think we need more explanation about the basic intended structure. There
> are at least the following scenarios to cope with for the 'simple tabular'
> types like biochemistry.
>
> 1. The doc orders (taking thyroid as an example)
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 02:47:07PM +0200, Philippe Ameline wrote:
> A friend of mine recently published a paper, after studying a group of
> GPs located in the South of France. He found out that the diagnosis is
> not reported in observations in more than one encounter out of two.
That's because
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:31:27AM +0100, Thomas Beale wrote:
> > 82% of correct recognition rate is a desaster in healthcare.
>
> 92% would be a disaster in healthcare ...
It much depends. In typical care "92%" (of what ?) can be an
extremely brilliant result far beyond anything available
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:52:07PM +0200, Bert Verhees wrote:
> Allthough, there are some patient-conditions which are very typical for a
> disease, mostly this is not the case.
> For example, many infection-diseases have fever as a symptom, and one person
> gets pain in his back, and the other
> But the person should be seen as more then a medical complaint, but as a
> complex of conditions and lifestyle.
> We need generic archetypes which can store machine generated datasets to
> store information about the whole person, instead of only the medical
> condition which is subject of
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:21:26PM +0200, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
> My evidence based feeling is that we still will need to sort it out manually
> for some years to come.
Not in visual classification of dermatological health concerns.
Or areas of radiological diagnostics.
Karsten H
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:57:05AM +0200, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
> I agree completely that it is not possible to know which information is
> relevant, and that all information is better recorded just in case
Not that I like the fact but that is currently illegal under EU GDPR.
Karsten
--
GPG
rent interpretation I am aware
of here in Germany.
Of course, this whole situation attests to the cluelessness
of people designing GDPR.
"Just in case" is simply not possible.
But better to let this rest.
Karsten Hilbert
--
GPG 40BE 5B0E C98E 1
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:48:11PM +0200, Diego Boscá wrote:
> I assume that when Stefan says "all", he is referring to these extra data
> points, which can be identified and accepted (or not), even on a one-by-one
> basis if needed
That would, formally, fulfil the requirements :-)
Which, of
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 08:34:20AM +0200, GF wrote:
> The GDPR allows the collection of health data.
> The GDPR restricts itself to person identifiable data and it secondary
> use/abuse of privacy rights.
>
> Since health and care are about all of society, all of life, all must be able
> to be
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 12:07:48PM +0100, Ian McNicoll wrote:
> and one of the best papers is
> http://www.differance-engine.net/chirad/healthrecords2007/The%20Problem%20Oriented%20Medical%20Record.doc
I must agree.
Funny thing is, I don't remember reading that paper before,
BUT, GNUmed
On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 05:35:07PM +0100, Thomas Beale wrote:
> well my epistemological (and non-MD) view is that thinking of a SOAP
> structure not just as the headings for a 'SOAP note', but as the headings
> for a 'problem summary' or similar, could create better quality
> problem-oriented
41 matches
Mail list logo
