date:20161124

RE: RM Participations name/role?

2016-11-24 Thread Bakke, Silje Ljosland

Hi, thanks for your replies everyone! I think the function attribute is 
sufficient for our use case, as the focus is on what the person did. Their 
profession/credentials can be provided by an external knowledge base.

BTW, I tried looking this up using the UML link from the CKM, which led me 
here: 
http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.1/reference-models/openEHR/UML/HTML/Browsable/_9_0_76d0249_1109066119163_537311_2210Report.html.
 I then tried to follow the List link to 
http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.1/reference-models/openEHR/UML/HTML/Browsable/_9_5_76d0249_1118914287896_171737_4134Report.html,
 which gave me a 404.

Mvh.
Silje

From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On 
Behalf Of Ian McNicoll
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 9:49 AM
To: For openEHR technical discussions 
Subject: Re: RM Participations name/role?

Hi David,

I think your approach is perfectly valid but I suspect would impose an overhead 
of complexity that is not always justified or necessary.

In the original lab system the kind of individual entry tracking you suggest is 
probably required to facilitate workflow but by the time it hits the ehr, that 
level of granularity is not needed IMO.

Another good example of the way the health data is summarised and compressed as 
it passes through the system.

Both approaches are valid IMO.

Ian
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 at 08:18, David Moner 
> wrote:
Hi,

I'm not sure if this is a correct approach. What in the example you call a 
function can be in fact a full Action that is being done. That is, if the 
function is so relevant that you can even assign a dedicated participant to it, 
it should be also enough important to be represented and documented as an 
individual entry of the EHR: coded, with start and end times, etc. If the case 
is that a complex procedure is composed by other simpler procedures, then we 
should document and link all of them.

I see the case of Silje from a different perspective. What she is asking is if 
we can document the participants of each Element inside the Entry. So far this 
is not possible, as Entries have been always seen as a whole clinical 
statement, with all participants assigned to that level.

2016-11-23 20:47 GMT+01:00 Ian McNicoll 
>:
Hi both

Agreed.

Role = pathologist
Function = macroscopic histopath examination.

Ian.
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 at 17:32, Thomas Beale 
> wrote:

Hi Silje,

The PARTICIPATION 
class
 has a codable attribute 'function' for this purpose (calling it 'function' 
rather than 'role' came from 13606). It may be that you want to state a 'role' 
as well, i.e. to say that a certain kind of person is required, and then use 
function to state the actual function that person is supposed to do in the 
particular activity in question.
I would have expected 'function' to be sufficient for your example - just use 2 
x other_participations on the OBSERVATION.

An example of needing both could be something like:

  *   role = nurse
  *   function = foley catheterisation

Currently 'role' is only known in the demographic model, i.e. on the other side 
of the PARTY_PROXY.external_ref link. It may make sense to add a role attribute 
to PARTICIPATION at some point if we need to distinguish the type of person 
(qualification) from what they do in the activity.

- thomas

On 23/11/2016 06:29, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
Hi,

We’re wondering if it’s possible to specify what the role was of each instance 
of Participation in an OBSERVATION archetype? For instance in a histopathology 
result the macroscopic description will often be performed by a different 
person from the microscopic description. We’re thinking both will be listed 
using participation, but we need to be able to document which person did what.

Kind regards,
Silje Ljosland Bakke

Information Architect, RN
Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
National ICT Norway
Tel. +47 40203298
Web: http://arketyper.no / Twitter: 
@arketyper_no

___

openEHR-technical mailing list

openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

Re: RM Participations name/role?

2016-11-24 Thread GF

My understanding:
Roles are characteristics of an entity (person, device)
Functions are characteristics of a service/process

I agree with David.
The Statement (ENTRY) defines who is involved in that statement.

Problem:
A Statement is the documented result of a process (Observing, 
Assessing/Inferencing, Planning, Ordering, Executing)
How to model a Panel/Bundle is documented in a Statement? (e.g. Chem 7 panel, 
Apgar score, Blood count, Long function, etc.)
Each of the items in the Panel theoretically can be executed by a different 
participant.


Gerard


> On 24 Nov 2016, at 09:18, David Moner  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a correct approach. What in the example you call a 
> function can be in fact a full Action that is being done. That is, if the 
> function is so relevant that you can even assign a dedicated participant to 
> it, it should be also enough important to be represented and documented as an 
> individual entry of the EHR: coded, with start and end times, etc. If the 
> case is that a complex procedure is composed by other simpler procedures, 
> then we should document and link all of them.
> 
> I see the case of Silje from a different perspective. What she is asking is 
> if we can document the participants of each Element inside the Entry. So far 
> this is not possible, as Entries have been always seen as a whole clinical 
> statement, with all participants assigned to that level.
> 
> 2016-11-23 20:47 GMT+01:00 Ian McNicoll  >:
> Hi both
> 
> Agreed. 
> 
> Role = pathologist
> Function = macroscopic histopath examination. 
> 
> Ian. 
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 at 17:32, Thomas Beale  > wrote:
> Hi Silje,
> 
> The PARTICIPATION class 
> 
>  has a codable attribute 'function' for this purpose (calling it 'function' 
> rather than 'role' came from 13606). It may be that you want to state a 
> 'role' as well, i.e. to say that a certain kind of person is required, and 
> then use function to state the actual function that person is supposed to do 
> in the particular activity in question. 
> I would have expected 'function' to be sufficient for your example - just use 
> 2 x other_participations on the OBSERVATION.
> 
> An example of needing both could be something like:
> role = nurse
> function = foley catheterisation
> Currently 'role' is only known in the demographic model, i.e. on the other 
> side of the PARTY_PROXY.external_ref link. It may make sense to add a role 
> attribute to PARTICIPATION at some point if we need to distinguish the type 
> of person (qualification) from what they do in the activity.
> 
> - thomas
> 
> On 23/11/2016 06:29, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> We’re wondering if it’s possible to specify what the role was of each 
>> instance of Participation in an OBSERVATION archetype? For instance in a 
>> histopathology result the macroscopic description will often be performed by 
>> a different person from the microscopic description. We’re thinking both 
>> will be listed using participation, but we need to be able to document which 
>> person did what.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Silje Ljosland Bakke
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Information Architect, RN
>> 
>> Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
>> National ICT Norway
>> 
>> Tel. +47 40203298 
>> Web: http://arketyper.no  / Twitter: @arketyper_no 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org 
>> 
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>  
>> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org 
> 
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org 
> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org 
> 
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Moner Cano
> Grupo de Informática Biomédica - IBIME
> Instituto ITACA
> http://www.ibime.upv.es 
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner 
> 
> Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (UPV)
> Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3ª planta
> Valencia –

Re: RM Participations name/role?

2016-11-24 Thread Ian McNicoll

Hi David,

I think your approach is perfectly valid but I suspect would impose an
overhead of complexity that is not always justified or necessary.

In the original lab system the kind of individual entry tracking you
suggest is probably required to facilitate workflow but by the time it hits
the ehr, that level of granularity is not needed IMO.

Another good example of the way the health data is summarised and
compressed as it passes through the system.

Both approaches are valid IMO.

Ian
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 at 08:18, David Moner  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure if this is a correct approach. What in the example you call a
> function can be in fact a full Action that is being done. That is, if the
> function is so relevant that you can even assign a dedicated participant to
> it, it should be also enough important to be represented and documented as
> an individual entry of the EHR: coded, with start and end times, etc. If
> the case is that a complex procedure is composed by other simpler
> procedures, then we should document and link all of them.
>
> I see the case of Silje from a different perspective. What she is asking
> is if we can document the participants of each Element inside the Entry. So
> far this is not possible, as Entries have been always seen as a whole
> clinical statement, with all participants assigned to that level.
>
> 2016-11-23 20:47 GMT+01:00 Ian McNicoll :
>
> Hi both
>
> Agreed.
>
> Role = pathologist
> Function = macroscopic histopath examination.
>
> Ian.
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 at 17:32, Thomas Beale 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Silje,
>
> The PARTICIPATION class
> 
> has a codable attribute 'function' for this purpose (calling it 'function'
> rather than 'role' came from 13606). It may be that you want to state a
> 'role' as well, i.e. to say that a certain *kind of person* is required,
> and then use function to state the actual function that person is supposed
> to do in the particular activity in question.
> I would have expected 'function' to be sufficient for your example - just
> use 2 x other_participations on the OBSERVATION.
>
> An example of needing both could be something like:
>
>- role = nurse
>- function = foley catheterisation
>
> Currently 'role' is only known in the demographic model, i.e. on the other
> side of the PARTY_PROXY.external_ref link. It may make sense to add a role
> attribute to PARTICIPATION at some point if we need to distinguish the type
> of person (qualification) from what they do in the activity.
>
> - thomas
>
> On 23/11/2016 06:29, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> We’re wondering if it’s possible to specify what the role was of each
> instance of Participation in an OBSERVATION archetype? For instance in a
> histopathology result the macroscopic description will often be performed
> by a different person from the microscopic description. We’re thinking both
> will be listed using participation, but we need to be able to document
> which person did what.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
> *Silje Ljosland Bakke*
>
>
>
> Information Architect, RN
>
> Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
> National ICT Norway
>
> Tel. +47 40203298
>
> Web: http://arketyper.no / Twitter: @arketyper_no
> 
>
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing 
> listopenEHR-technical@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> David Moner Cano
> Grupo de Informática Biomédica - IBIME
> Instituto ITACA
> http://www.ibime.upv.es
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner
>
> Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (UPV)
> Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3ª planta
> Valencia – 46022 (España)
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: RM Participations name/role?

2016-11-24 Thread David Moner

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is a correct approach. What in the example you call a
function can be in fact a full Action that is being done. That is, if the
function is so relevant that you can even assign a dedicated participant to
it, it should be also enough important to be represented and documented as
an individual entry of the EHR: coded, with start and end times, etc. If
the case is that a complex procedure is composed by other simpler
procedures, then we should document and link all of them.

I see the case of Silje from a different perspective. What she is asking is
if we can document the participants of each Element inside the Entry. So
far this is not possible, as Entries have been always seen as a whole
clinical statement, with all participants assigned to that level.

2016-11-23 20:47 GMT+01:00 Ian McNicoll :

> Hi both
>
> Agreed.
>
> Role = pathologist
> Function = macroscopic histopath examination.
>
> Ian.
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 at 17:32, Thomas Beale 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Silje,
>>
>> The PARTICIPATION class
>> 
>> has a codable attribute 'function' for this purpose (calling it 'function'
>> rather than 'role' came from 13606). It may be that you want to state a
>> 'role' as well, i.e. to say that a certain *kind of person* is required,
>> and then use function to state the actual function that person is supposed
>> to do in the particular activity in question.
>> I would have expected 'function' to be sufficient for your example - just
>> use 2 x other_participations on the OBSERVATION.
>>
>> An example of needing both could be something like:
>>
>>- role = nurse
>>- function = foley catheterisation
>>
>> Currently 'role' is only known in the demographic model, i.e. on the
>> other side of the PARTY_PROXY.external_ref link. It may make sense to add a
>> role attribute to PARTICIPATION at some point if we need to distinguish the
>> type of person (qualification) from what they do in the activity.
>>
>> - thomas
>>
>> On 23/11/2016 06:29, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> We’re wondering if it’s possible to specify what the role was of each
>> instance of Participation in an OBSERVATION archetype? For instance in a
>> histopathology result the macroscopic description will often be performed
>> by a different person from the microscopic description. We’re thinking both
>> will be listed using participation, but we need to be able to document
>> which person did what.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> *Silje Ljosland Bakke*
>>
>>
>>
>> Information Architect, RN
>>
>> Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
>> National ICT Norway
>>
>> Tel. +47 40203298
>>
>> Web: http://arketyper.no / Twitter: @arketyper_no
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing 
>> listopenEHR-technical@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-
>> technical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-
> technical_lists.openehr.org
>



-- 
David Moner Cano
Grupo de Informática Biomédica - IBIME
Instituto ITACA
http://www.ibime.upv.es
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner

Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (UPV)
Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3ª planta
Valencia – 46022 (España)
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

RE: RM Participations name/role?

Re: RM Participations name/role?

Re: RM Participations name/role?

Re: RM Participations name/role?

4 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information