SV: Context in persistent COMPOSITION archetypes?

Hi To the first question – technical: Is it possible to have context on a persistent composition? Yes – I think that should be possible. Some will argue that the context is an EVENT_CONTEXT and such context should only be used for event based Compositions. I think it makes sense to have some co

Re: Context in persistent COMPOSITION archetypes?

Hi Silje, Can you tell us more about the background? Are you trying to provide the model for the message, or to store the data when it is received (or both)? Where does the data come from and how is it managed / curated? Does it come from a single clinician (presumably GP) or from multiple source

Context in persistent COMPOSITION archetypes?

Hi, Is is possible to add context, ie actual text or other data types, to a persistent composition. The Archetype Editor doesn't seem to support this. The use case is entries to the Norwegian national summary records, where each entry needs to be given a code (of course using a specific, Nation

RE: Use of RM:provider

Hi Bjørn and Ian! The original use case for this code set was adverse reactions, but with the development of the national summary records, it’s been expanded for use with other kinds of critical information as specified below. This means that it needs to be used across the adverse reaction risk

Re: Runtime name suggestions?

Thanks Diego, I was hoping you would confirm that. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: i...@freshehr.com twitter: @ianmcnicoll Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. Direc

Re: Use of RM:provider

Hi Bjorn, Thanks - it makes much more sense in the context of Adverse reaction but TBH I still doubt very much if this 'provenance' source metadata is captured or known reliably. I asked a couple of UK GP colleagues and they agreed. I would argue that this data a) often not available b) unreliable

SV: Use of RM:provider

Hi The specified terminology ( OID 2.16.578.1.12.4.1.7498 (Source of information) ) is defined as “options to specify the source of data for an allergic reaction” (my translation). Which means this is specific for adverse reaction – and I think it should be archetyped to model this requirement