Vince
The notion of superceded applies to compositions and is inherent in the
versioning approach. Exclude from automatic processing is for entries.
Sam
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org
> [mailto:owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org]On Behalf Of Vince
I think there is a need for both "superceded" and "exclude from automatic
processing".
Wherever the "haemolysed" marker ends up in the archetype/EHR it won't be
the only such beast.
Some other examples are "clotted" and "clumped" for full blood counts,
"incorrectly collected" (specimen in wrong ty
Bhupinder Singh
> Hi Sam,
>
> What yo usuggest is OK . But the issue is who is to decide what is right
> and what is wrong. Should it not be the prerogative of the clinician.
>
> There are situations where medical decisions are based upon results which
> trigger clinical decisions. How would y
Vincent McCauley ,
> Hi Thomas,
> The issue here is that Pathology labs will produce a numeric result for say
> Potassium
> but when it is high willl look at the specimen, decide it is haemolysed and
> actually
> report "Haemolysed" as the result. The Lab will store two results, the
> numeric valu
Bhupinder
The only values we are not wanting to show are those that are wrong - and
have been changed in a later version. The idea behind this is to store the
information in an openEHR system inside the Pathology service and then send
an extract - rather than develop a lot of messages.
Cheers, Sa
Hi Thomas,
The issue here is that Pathology labs will produce a numeric result for say
Potassium
but when it is high willl look at the specimen, decide it is haemolysed and
actually
report "Haemolysed" as the result. The Lab will store two results, the
numeric value e.g. 7.0
and the reported result
This is dealt with by most pathology systems by keeping at least 5
date/times related to a result
1. Date/Time ordered
2. Date/Time specimen taken
3. Date/Time order entered in Pathology Lab. computer system
4. Date/Time result entered
5. Date/Time result authorised for release
In the scenario you
Sam wrote:
> Thomas
>
> I am not sure that we need to do such a major rework. These samples are time
> ordered but have no sensible time. So they could appear in the history list
> without an offset, labelled in what ever way was helpful, recognising they
> are part of the same measurement. On th
Bhupinder Singh , wrote
> What you say is one possibility.
> What is important is when there are two results out of the scenario and the
> readings are different. Would it be correct to take a mean. The difference
> in the reading may be on account of a number of causes starting from
> --Machine
Christopher Feahr wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> I'm not sure I like the notion of "superceded". Is the first test an
> error? If so, the first result should simply be marked "wrong" and voided
> or removed. If the first result just looked a little goofy to the
> clinician, but there was nothing to i
HI,
On one hand there is the notion as used in HL7 where series of messages
update databases producing a list of updated measurements.
On the other hand there is the notion as used in CEN/TC251 and OpenEHR
where documents are used to enhance the raw data by providing a human
interpretation and a
Hi,
Only an attribute will not be enough.
It has to be accompanied by rules.
Information will be stored in various contexts and not always in the same
system. The same information will be stored in separate contexts.
A change in the status of the 'Lifecycle marker' in one machine will not
result
Thomas
It is more that units match "Force"/"Length"^2 for pressure and it is an
expression that the property of pressure is the property of "Force" per
property of "area" - this does allow a very wide range of units to be used
if that is the requirement.
I am starting to see that things do get c
Thomas
My approach to this, which is expressed in the editor, is to standardise
only on the base and maximum values of the ordinal. The terms that are used
are not an issue and standardisation is really way beyond scope when people
use all sorts of terms for this purpose. Apgar is a classic - 0,1,
Thomas
I am not sure that we need to do such a major rework. These samples are time
ordered but have no sensible time. So they could appear in the history list
without an offset, labelled in what ever way was helpful, recognising they
are part of the same measurement. On thinking about this (if yo
15 matches
Mail list logo
