be the same archetype that carries other important clinical
> indicators, like "living", "deceased" etc). In the mother's EHR there is
> also a "carrying child" indicator.
I am not sure about this - I think this is getting far too complicated for
what is a re
hr.org
> [mailto:owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org]On Behalf Of William E
> Hammond
> Sent: Friday, 20 December 2002 11:19 PM
> To: Thomas Beale
> Cc: Ignacio Valdes; openehr-technical at openehr.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Subject of care]
>
>
>
> We actually dealt with
t: Thursday, 19 December 2002 7:57 PM
> To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Subject of care]
>
>
>
> >>A foetus is tightly coupled to a mother, but is sufficiently
> >>distinct for there to be a need for a separate EHR under certain
> >>c
On 2002-12-30 12:38, "Sam Heard" wrote:
> Dear All
>
>> 1. In the demographic server, we create 2 PERSONs, and use a foetus
>> archetype for one. We put a mother/in utero PARTY_RELATIONSHIP
>> between them.
>>
>> however, the in utero relationship as a clinical phenomenon is probably
>> more im
results.
>>>
>>
>> This example is a very good one - it shows that there is a need to
> identify
>> the fetus over and above its relationship with the mother. I have
> suggested
>> that we use a local label for this - could be LOCAL:Twin1_2002. - the
>
Ignacio Valdes wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 07:24:33 +0930
>
>> I think that the only systematic approach is to make a new EHR for
>> each genetically distinct individual. This means making an EHR for a
>> foetus as soon as anything at all is to be measured about it, and
>> also storing the l
We actually dealt with this topic at Duke in the OB system in the early
1980s. We did create a record. One interesting problem was "ghost"
pregnancies in which it appeared for a period of time to have two fetuses
later to be one. Our actually execution turned out to not create the new
baby reco
Matthew Darlison wrote:
>Regardig new EHRs etc, might there be scope for mimicking what nature
>does - a child EHR which for example must inherit its identifier
>context from its mother as it really can only be identified
>meaningfully by a qualifier of "this is the demographic person inside
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 07:24:33 +0930
> I think that the only systematic approach is to make a
>new EHR for each genetically distinct individual. This means making an
> EHR for a foetus as soon as anything at all is to be measured about it,
> and also storing the link of this EHR to that of the mot
Dear All,
It might be useful for me to clarify why I proposed the CVS use case
in the first place. I saw Sam's assertion that "the fetus can be
treated as part fo the mother", and that bothered me because while
that's the legal state of affairs in many places, if implemented
thoroughly it also
>>A foetus is tightly coupled to a mother, but is sufficiently
>>distinct for there to be a need for a separate EHR under certain
>>circumstances.
What do you call "certain circumstances" ; anyway, the follow up
echographies during pregnancy belong to the future baby.
>> The question is when d
Sam,
I take Tom's position. The issue is whether there is a one to one
mapping between subject of care and an EHR.
>From a health perspective, a foetus can be considered as a subject of
care in its own right.
A foetus is tightly coupled to a mother, but is sufficiently
distinct for there
Eric Browne wrote:
>Sam,
>
>I take Tom's position. The issue is whether there is a one to one
>mapping between subject of care and an EHR.
>
>>From a health perspective, a foetus can be considered as a subject of
>care in its own right.
>
and I think it can certa
Sam Heard wrote:
>Tom
>
>This is not necessary or appropriate - as Matthew has said - placenta is
>both!
>
don't see a problem. If observatios are being made from the placenta to
determine the health / viability of the foetus, then these are added to
the record of the foetus. Why not?
> It is
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Beale [mailto:thomas at deepthought.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 19 December 2002 1:43 AM
> To: Sam Heard
> Cc: openehr-technical at openehr.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Subject of care]
>
>
>
> I think that the only systematic approach
nd, but which
>>*must not* be confused with her own clinical diagnoses or test
>>results.
>>
>
>This example is a very good one - it shows that there is a need to
identify
>the fetus over and above its relationship with the mother. I have
suggested
>that we use a l
Hi,
>I think that the only systematic approach is to make a new EHR for each
>genetically distinct individual. This means making an EHR for a foetus
>as soon as anything at all is to be measured about it, and also storing
>the link of this EHR to that of the mother.
This is a very interesting iss
>> results.
> >
> > This example is a very good one - it shows that there is a need to identify
> > the fetus over and above its relationship with the mother. I have suggested
> > that we use a local label for this - could be LOCAL:Twin1_2002. - the
> > relationsh
ove its relationship with the mother. I have suggested
> that we use a local label for this - could be LOCAL:Twin1_2002. - the
> relationship for the information is FETUS. The important thing here is that
> we have the idea of subject of care - a unique identifier (or self) and the
> relatio
t; results.
This example is a very good one - it shows that there is a need to identify
the fetus over and above its relationship with the mother. I have suggested
that we use a local label for this - could be LOCAL:Twin1_2002. - the
relationship for the information is FETUS. The important thing her
aying that the relationship is the only
> defining feature and there is no ID.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Sam
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Beale [mailto:thomas at deepthought.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2002 6:43 PM
>
relationship is the only
defining feature and there is no ID.
Cheers, Sam
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Beale [mailto:thomas at deepthought.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2002 6:43 PM
To: Sam Heard
Subject: Re: Subject of care
Sam Heard wrote:
>D
December 2002 12:03 AM
> To: Sam Heard
> Cc: Openehr-Technical
> Subject: Re: Subject of care
>
>
>
>
> Sam Heard wrote:
>
> >Dear all
> >
> >I have been reviewing the subject of care - over family history.
> It is clear
> >that the following info
ve.
>>
>> A S.o.C indicates the participation in activities.
>>
> in the openEHR models, we have explicitly made "subject of care" the
> party being cared for; this is distinct from the "subject of a
> clinical statement", whcih may be an organ or sample
Gerard Freriks wrote:
>Hi,
>
>
>S.o.C can mean many things:
>
>One person
>One mother or foetus
>Any body part in or outside the body
>
>And any grouping of items mentioned above.
>
>A S.o.C indicates the participation in activities.
>
in the openEHR mode
Sam Heard wrote:
>Mario
>
>This may be the case but our subject of care is quite specific - it is the
>whole person to whom this information relates.
>
yes - in the openEHR models, there is another 'subject', namely
ENTRY.subject, which is the 'subject of the cl
been reviewing the subject of care - over family history. It is clear
> that the following information is potentially useful:
>
> 1. The name of the person so you can refer to them as so-and-so
>
> 2. The relationship (father, mother) this might or might not include their
> genetic
Mario
This may be the case but our subject of care is quite specific - it is the
whole person to whom this information relates.
So information about the fetus or donor can be in the person's record. We
have family history problem - with a specific subject - that is, the
relative. I have mod
Sam Heard wrote:
>Dear all
>
>I have been reviewing the subject of care - over family history. It is clear
>that the following information is potentially useful:
>
>1. The name of the person so you can refer to them as so-and-so
>
but not in the EHR as such - in some plac
Hi Sam,
Is sometimes (from a specialist view) a specific System (liver or heart) not
treated as a subject of care ? Example SIZE related to
the organ (or other subsystem of the body) rather than applied on the whole
individual ?
Cheers, Mario
- Original Message -
From: "Sam Heard
Dear all,
I am joigning the discussion, some of you already know me from GEHR times,
so a big hug to them and friendly greetings to all of you.
Re: subject of care, several remarks from my perspective but which may
already have been treated as I am not already through all of the
documentation
Eric
We have fetus and donor as subjects of care also - sorry for omitting that.
Cheers, Sam
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Browne [mailto:eric at montagesystems.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, 2 December 2002 8:48 AM
> To: Sam Heard
> Cc: Openehr-Technical
> Subject: R
t;
> I have been reviewing the subject of care - over family history. It is clear
> that the following information is potentially useful:
>
> 1. The name of the person so you can refer to them as so-and-so
>
> 2. The relationship (father, mother) this might or might not include
Dear all
I have been reviewing the subject of care - over family history. It is clear
that the following information is potentially useful:
1. The name of the person so you can refer to them as so-and-so
2. The relationship (father, mother) this might or might not include their
genetic
Eric,
in some countries it is illegal for the donee to know the donor
name so it may not always be convenient/legal to store it.
Just my 2 cents,
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
-
If you have any questions about using this list,
35 matches
Mail list logo
