Yet another OBSERVATION vs. EVALUATION issue
stef at vivici.nl
Wed Aug 15 05:10:47 EDT 2012
This brings back flashbacks to the 'data quality' discussion we had on this list about 5 years ago. The conclusion then was that we first had to learn to walk before we could run. Hopefully today we're learning to run.... (can't wait untill we're learning to fly:-) ).
Personallly i still think that any RISK or SEVERITY evaluation if completely worthless unless that evaluation AT contains a detailed protocol describing the criteria (preferably based on evidence based literature) on which that evalution is made. To come back to Gerard remarks, that also would mean that it decribes that the outcome high means that the risk for the event x in that particular situation is greater that y%.
Just my 2 cents.
Op 15 aug. 2012, om 10:19 heeft Shinji KOBAYASHI het volgende geschreven:
> Hi Gerald,
> Completely agree with controversy in RISK evaluation.
> I have similar experience on SEVERITY evaluation.
> openEHR-EHR-problem-diagnosis archetype has severity metrics,
> but it does not fit for various evaluation criteria.
> I specialized to have a 'severity detail' slot to apply various severity
> criteria for many diseases.
> As Risk evaluation depends on cases, we need to develop cluster to
> express such risk evaluation models on demand.
> 2012/8/15 Gerard Freriks <gfrer at luna.nl>:
>> RISK is a complex thing.
>> Only looking at temporal aspects:
>> The risk to die within 10 years when you are 100 years old is HIGH
>> The risk to die within 10 years when you are 30 years old is LOW
>> The risk to die within 100 years for each average person is HIGH
>> The risk to die within one day for the average person is LOW
>> The risk to have prostate cancer until 40 years of age LOW
>> The risk to have prostate cancer after 70 years is HIGH
>> Adding severity:
>> The risk to die of prostate cancer after 70 years is LOW (Most man have prostate cancer at this age but most never die because of it)
>> How is RISK used in healthcare?
>> Almost never it is calculated with mathematical precision.
>> It is expressed in a semi-quantitative way: Low, Normal, High, etc.
>> It would be nice when archetypes can express that in a sensible way.
>> It will be impossible to use the DV-Data Type for this.
>> Reason? It is not expressive enough because the semi-quantitative result needs to document more.
>> It needs inclusion and exclusion criteria because there is no generic definition of Low, Normal, High.
>> Each context is unique and opinions change over time.
>> Each and everybody has to define the criteria in the local context. (Speciality, organisation, disease/condition, healthcare provider even patient specific at one point in time)
>> Gerard Freriks
>> +31 620347088
>> gfrer at luna.nl
>> On 14 Aug 2012, at 16:58, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
>>> HIGH RISK= High probability of Something to occur in a certain time period and causing a severe harm to persons or other subjects
>>> LOW RISK = something will never occur and even if it does it will not harm anyone or anything
>>> Stefan Sauermann
>>> Program Director
>>> Biomedical Engineering Sciences (Master)
>>> University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien
>>> Hoechstaedtplatz 5, 1200 Vienna, Austria
>>> P: +43 1 333 40 77 - 988
>>> M: +43 664 6192555
>>> E: stefan.sauermann at technikum-wien.at
>>> I: www.technikum-wien.at/mbe
>>> I: www.technikum-wien.at/ibmt
>>> I: www.healthy-interoperability.at
>>> Am 14.08.2012 16:55, schrieb Gerard Freriks:
>>>> E.g. RISK= High Risk of Something to occur in a certain time period.
>> openEHR-clinical mailing list
>> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
More information about the openEHR-clinical