openEHR 13606 EHR Extract
I have updated the page http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/openEHR+EHR+Extract on the openEHR EHR Extract to now include a reference to a new ADL 1.5 template example for a full Extract of a simple discharge summary (do an SVN update on your local copy of the http://www.openehr.org/svn/knowledge2/ repository to get the new archetypes and templates). This work illustrates a large, realistic structure modelled as an ADL 1.5 template and archetypes, and the resulting structured can be seen in the 'flat view' visualisation. Soon we will have the ADL and XML OPT serialisation being output. Apart from the ADL 1.5 template-based modelling, this example might help people understand the openEHR EHR Extract. I sometimes see, with some amusement, web pages, posts or papers saying things like 'openEHR is a model of an EHR, 13606 is a model of an Extract' etc. While it is true that 13606 defines only a model of an Extract, openEHR defines a model of EHR information, in both a form that could be used to design an EHR, and a form that is used for Extracts. Indeed, the openEHR Extract is significantly more flexible than the 13606 Extract (now somewhat out of date). Perhaps if there any new version of 13606 in the future might be able to benefit from the design used here. - thomas beale ** -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110505/18fcb952/attachment.html
openEHR 13606 EHR Extract
Hello Thomas, Some questions about the example available at the SVN (http://www.openehr.org/svn/knowledge2/TRUNK/archetypes/openEHR_examples/ehr_extract_template/Working/Templates/ehr_extract/openEHR-EHR_EXTRACT-EXTRACT.t_basic_acute.v1.adls) - What does the next snippet mean? use_archetype COMPOSITION[at0103, openEHR-EHR-COMPOSITION.t_clinical_info_ds.v1] allow_archetype COMPOSITION[at0103.1] closed In the first case... that's a big archetype node identifier! Is that a simplification of the includes syntax? In the second one, what does 'closed' mean? Is the same that putting the occurrences to 0..0? If I remember correctly, use_archetype and allow_archetype are equivalent in ADL 1.4. what is the difference between them? By the way, isn't 'use_archetype' deprecated in ADL 1.5 (as can be seen on page 42 of current draft)? - All content seems to be included by value now at the EXTRACT. Following current (and I suppose outdated) Extract XSD schemas (as you can see here http://prntscr.com/1tydt) everything is referenced. On the specifications I see that there is 'item' of 'Any' type. Does that mean that can be an object or a reference? - What is the difference between an EXTRACT_CHAPTER and a common FOLDER? 2011/5/5 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com: I have updated the page http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/openEHR+EHR+Extract on the openEHR EHR Extract to now include a reference to a new ADL 1.5 template example for a full Extract of a simple discharge summary (do an SVN update on your local copy of the http://www.openehr.org/svn/knowledge2/ repository to get the new archetypes and templates). This work illustrates a large, realistic structure modelled as an ADL 1.5 template and archetypes, and the resulting structured can be seen in the 'flat view' visualisation. Soon we will have the ADL and XML OPT serialisation being output. Apart from the ADL 1.5 template-based modelling, this example might help people understand the openEHR EHR Extract. I sometimes see, with some amusement, web pages, posts or papers saying things like 'openEHR is a model of an EHR, 13606 is a model of an Extract' etc. While it is true that 13606 defines only a model of an Extract, openEHR defines a model of EHR information, in both a form that could be used to design an EHR, and a form that is used for Extracts. Indeed, the openEHR Extract is significantly more flexible than the 13606 Extract (now somewhat out of date). Perhaps if there any new version of 13606 in the future might be able to benefit from the design used here. - thomas beale ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
openEHR 13606 EHR Extract
that can be an object or a reference? probably you mean EXTRACT_CONTENT_ITEM.item : Any. This class is specialised depending on the kind of Extract, into: * OPENEHR_CONTENT_ITEM (openEHR extracts) where item is of type X_VERSIONED_OBJECT and * GENERIC_CONTENT_ITEM (13606, CDA, other) where item is of type LOCATABLE - What is the difference between an EXTRACT_CHAPTER and a common FOLDER? Chapters of type EXTRACT_CHAPTER are used to explicitly organise top-level chunks of content in the Extract; the meaning of each chapter is archetype/template-defined. EXTRACT_FOLDERs are there to represent FOLDER or similar structures from the source system, i.e. to preserve such structures in the Extract. So EXTRACT_CHAPTER is an artefact of an Extract, FOLDER is (usually) an artefact of data being extracted. I think 13606 mixes these functions up in one FOLDER class, which makes it difficult to say what a Folder actually is in a 13606 Extract. - thomas -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110505/9ed3ba05/attachment.html
openEHR 13606 EHR Extract
2011/5/5 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com - What is the difference between an EXTRACT_CHAPTER and a common FOLDER? Chapters of type EXTRACT_CHAPTER are used to explicitly organise top-level chunks of content in the Extract; the meaning of each chapter is archetype/template-defined. EXTRACT_FOLDERs are there to represent FOLDER or similar structures from the source system, i.e. to preserve such structures in the Extract. So EXTRACT_CHAPTER is an artefact of an Extract, FOLDER is (usually) an artefact of data being extracted. I think 13606 mixes these functions up in one FOLDER class, which makes it difficult to say what a Folder actually is in a 13606 Extract. - thomas As in other cases, the 13606 approach uses a more generic way to get the same results without the need of defining specific classes or data structures. At this specific case, there is an attribute at all RECORD_COMPONENTs that is synthesised. Its definition is: This attribute value must be TRUE if this RECORD_COMPONENT has been created in order to comply with this standard , but this point in the EHR hierarchy has no corresponding node in the EHR from which it was extracted. So, as you said, in a 13606 extract we can have a mix of FOLDERs created to organise the information of the Extract and FOLDERs existing at the original EHR system, but they can be clearly distinguished by the synthesised attribute. David -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110505/ad69b710/attachment.html
openEHR 13606 EHR Extract
And again, why 'closed' and not occurrences {0}? Is really needed to
include a new reserved word when you already have the way of
expressing this?
When you resolve a use_archetype while generating the instance you
will put the data, not a reference to it. On the other hand, the model
tells you that it has to be a reference (X_VERSIONED_OBJECT or
LOCATABLE). Am I missing something here?
what is the big difference in using use_archetype and use_template if
both are archetypes (with the same AOM and using ADL 1.5)?
2011/5/5 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com
On 05/05/2011 11:26, Diego Bosc? wrote:
Hello Thomas,
Some questions about the example available at the SVN
(http://www.openehr.org/svn/knowledge2/TRUNK/archetypes/openEHR_examples/ehr_extract_template/Working/Templates/ehr_extract/openEHR-EHR_EXTRACT-EXTRACT.t_basic_acute.v1.adls)
- What does the next snippet mean?
use_archetype COMPOSITION[at0103,
openEHR-EHR-COMPOSITION.t_clinical_info_ds.v1]
allow_archetype COMPOSITION[at0103.1] closed
from the ADL 1.5 draft, pg 113:
In addition to or instead of specifying slot fillers, it is possible in a
slot specialisation to narrow the
slot definition, or to close it. If fillers are specified, closing the slot
as well is typical. The latter is
done by including an overridden version of the archetype slot object itself,
with the ?closed? constraint
set, as in the following example:
use_archetype
SECTION[org.openehr::openEHR-EHRSECTION.history_medical_surgical.v1] matches {
??? /items matches {
?? use_archetype EVALUATION[at0002 = openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1]
??? ??? allow_archetype EVALUATION[at0002.1] closed
??? }
}
Narrowing the slot is done with a replacement allow_archetype statement
containing a narrowed
set of match criteria. Since narrowing or closing is a change in definition,
the node identifier needs to
be specialised, if there is one.
Note that in the software the syntax has changed slightly from the '=' to a
comma; the PDF needs to be updated for this.
In the first case... that's a big archetype node identifier! Is that a
simplification of the includes syntax?
have a look at the t_* source template examples here in the SVN repo, e.g.
EXTRACT[at.1] matches { -- Discharge summary
/chapters[at0002]/items[at0003]/item matches {
use_archetype PERSON[at0100,
openEHR-DEMOGRAPHIC-PERSON.t_patient_ds.v1]
allow_archetype PERSON[at0100.1] closed
}
/chapters[at0002]/items[at0004]/item matches {
use_archetype ORGANISATION[at0101,
openEHR-DEMOGRAPHIC-ORGANISATION.healthcare_establishment.v1]
allow_archetype ORGANISATION[at0101.1] closed
}
/chapters[at0002]/items[at0005]/item matches {
use_archetype PERSON[at0102,
openEHR-DEMOGRAPHIC-PERSON.healthcare_professional.v1]
allow_archetype PERSON[at0102.1] closed
}
/chapters[at0001]/items matches {
GENERIC_CONTENT_ITEM[at0006.1] matches {
version_set_id existence matches {1}
item_status existence matches {1}
item_type existence matches {1}
item_type_version existence matches {1}
creation_time existence matches {1}
author existence matches {1}
}
}
/chapters[at0001]/items[at0006]/item matches {
use_archetype COMPOSITION[at0103,
openEHR-EHR-COMPOSITION.t_clinical_info_ds.v1]
allow_archetype COMPOSITION[at0103.1] closed
}
}
This is how archetype slot filling is done in ADL 1.5.
In the second one, what does 'closed' mean? Is the same that putting
the occurrences to 0..0?
If I remember correctly, use_archetype and allow_archetype are
equivalent in ADL 1.4. what is the difference between them? By the
way, isn't 'use_archetype' deprecated in ADL 1.5 (as can be seen on
page 42 of current draft)?
allow_archetype defines a slot. If you see it in a template, it means that
the slot definition is being specialised (i.e. redefined in a conformant way)
use_archetype means: 'fill this slot with this archetype'
- All content seems to be included by value now at the EXTRACT.
top level objects are included by value in their respective chapters. The
demographic chapter typically contains some objects like HCP, HCF, Patient
etc. These are referenced from clinical data, which is found in a clinical
chapter. Including demographic data in the Extract is only necessary if there
is no agreed shared / central place to resolve identifiers found in clinical
information. If there is, it is not
openEHR 13606 EHR Extract
On 05/05/2011 13:42, David Moner wrote: 2011/5/5 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com mailto:thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com - What is the difference between an EXTRACT_CHAPTER and a common FOLDER? Chapters of type EXTRACT_CHAPTER are used to explicitly organise top-level chunks of content in the Extract; the meaning of each chapter is archetype/template-defined. EXTRACT_FOLDERs are there to represent FOLDER or similar structures from the source system, i.e. to preserve such structures in the Extract. So EXTRACT_CHAPTER is an artefact of an Extract, FOLDER is (usually) an artefact of data being extracted. I think 13606 mixes these functions up in one FOLDER class, which makes it difficult to say what a Folder actually is in a 13606 Extract. - thomas As in other cases, the 13606 approach uses a more generic way to get the same results without the need of defining specific classes or data structures. At this specific case, there is an attribute at all RECORD_COMPONENTs that is synthesised. Its definition is: This attribute value must be TRUE if this RECORD_COMPONENT has been created in order to comply with this standard , but this point in the EHR hierarchy has no corresponding node in the EHR from which it was extracted. I am actually the person responsible for this attribute (I proposed it at a CEN meeting in Rome in about 2004, if I remember correctly). The intention of this attribute is to indicate if container structures, e.g. Cluster, Entry, Composition objects in the Extract had to be synthesised completely new rather than generated from source data, due to the source data being very simple, e.g. a flat list or so. In openEHR it was originally an attribute, but became a value of the coded attribute AUDIT_DETAILS.change_type (it is openEHR code 252). But that is not the same thing as EXTRACT_CHAPTER - the latter is an organising structure within an Extract, regardless of what the content is - it is what allows demographic entities to be grouped in one place, and clinical information on a per patient basis to be grouped under chapters, one for each patient. This allows for very flexible data structuring, e.g. large numbers of lab results for hundreds of patients in an Extract. The Folder is a possible artefact of the content. Since Folders are optional, there is no question of them needing to be 'synthesised' to comply with the standard. So I can't think how synthesised=True on any optional container object, Folder included, could meaningfully be interpreted. - thomas* * -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110505/e2aa4518/attachment.html
openEHR 13606 EHR Extract
}
item_type_version existence matches {1}
creation_time existence matches {1}
author existence matches {1}
}
}
/chapters[at0001]/items[at0006]/item matches {
use_archetype COMPOSITION[at0103,
openEHR-EHR-COMPOSITION.t_clinical_info_ds.v1]
allow_archetype COMPOSITION[at0103.1] closed
}
}
This is how archetype slot filling is done in ADL 1.5.
In the second one, what does 'closed' mean? Is the same that putting
the occurrences to 0..0?
If I remember correctly, use_archetype and allow_archetype are
equivalent in ADL 1.4. what is the difference between them? By the
way, isn't 'use_archetype' deprecated in ADL 1.5 (as can be seen on
page 42 of current draft)?
allow_archetype defines a slot. If you see it in a template, it means that
the slot definition is being specialised (i.e. redefined in a conformant way)
use_archetype means: 'fill this slot with this archetype'
- All content seems to be included by value now at the EXTRACT.
top level objects are included by value in their respective chapters. The
demographic chapter typically contains some objects like HCP, HCF, Patient
etc. These are referenced from clinical data, which is found in a clinical
chapter. Including demographic data in the Extract is only necessary if
there is no agreed shared / central place to resolve identifiers found in
clinical information. If there is, it is not needed. I don't think the
reference / by-value semantics are different from that shown in the
screenshot below though.
Following current (and I suppose outdated) Extract XSD schemas (as you
can see here http://prntscr.com/1tydt) everything is referenced. On
the specifications I see that there is 'item' of 'Any' type. Does that
mean that can be an object or a reference?
probably you mean EXTRACT_CONTENT_ITEM.item : Any. This class is specialised
depending on the kind of Extract, into:
OPENEHR_CONTENT_ITEM (openEHR extracts) where item is of type
X_VERSIONED_OBJECT and
GENERIC_CONTENT_ITEM (13606, CDA, other) where item is of type LOCATABLE
- What is the difference between an EXTRACT_CHAPTER and a common FOLDER?
Chapters of type EXTRACT_CHAPTER are used to explicitly organise top-level
chunks of content in the Extract; the meaning of each chapter is
archetype/template-defined. EXTRACT_FOLDERs are there to represent FOLDER or
similar structures from the source system, i.e. to preserve such structures
in the Extract. So EXTRACT_CHAPTER is an artefact of an Extract, FOLDER is
(usually) an artefact of data being extracted. I think 13606 mixes these
functions up in one FOLDER class, which makes it difficult to say what a
Folder actually is in a 13606 Extract.
- thomas
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
--
Ocean Informatics *Thomas Beale
Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics
http://www.oceaninformatics.com/*
Chair Architectural Review Board, /open/EHR Foundation
http://www.openehr.org/
Honorary Research Fellow, University College London
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
http://www.bcs.org.uk/
Health IT blog http://www.wolandscat.net/
*
*
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110505/a2651038/attachment.html
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ocean_full_small.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5828 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110505/a2651038/attachment.jpg
openEHR 13606 EHR Extract
On 05/05/2011 15:47, Thomas Beale wrote:
On 05/05/2011 13:49, Diego Bosc? wrote:
And again, why 'closed' and not occurrences {0}? Is really needed to
include a new reserved word when you already have the way of
expressing this?
because the intention is not to set occurrences to 0, the intention is
to prevent any further fillers at run time. But the total occurrences
could be any number, 'closed' just means that all fillers have to be
specified in the template before it is deployed; 'open' means that
more fillers can be added at runtime. I must admit I took some time to
find a simple syntax approach to try and indicate this. Maybe you have
a better suggestion, but it would not be to do with occurrences,
because as I say, the occurrences could already be any range, and
closing the interval doesn't mean zero-ing out the occurrences.
to clarify a bit further: the whole reason for this feature is to
support the extremely common situation of a physician or other HCP
needing to be able to decide at runtime some of the archetypes of the
template. Many other templates however can be 100% pre-designed, i..e
all archetypes known, only data values to be filled in. Most lab results
would be in this category.
- thomas
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110505/d461f25f/attachment.html
on the possibility of 'one information model' in e-health
this is an often debated question, and after coming across (for the 100th time) just such a debate recently online, I thought it might be interesting to try to get to the bottom of the question in some way. The basic idea posted here http://wolandscat.net/2011/05/05/no-single-information-model/. It is of course not scientific work, but I would be interested in the views of others on this concept. - thomas beale ** -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110505/b2c6392d/attachment.html
