Yet another OBSERVATION vs. EVALUATION issue

Stefan Sauermann sauermann at
Mon Aug 20 09:37:44 EDT 2012

Agree to practical solutions, and to not change but support what is 
going on in medicine.

Is this a "general purpose" diagnosis archetype or is there any limit at 
least to some area?
The discussion will be much easier and to the point if there is a 
usecase. Diagnosis is very different in places and I do not see a simple 
"one fits all" archetype soon.

A "general purpose" diagnosis archetype in all bloom will not provide 
detailed interoperability. It will only be able to serve as search 
target, and readers will have to parse the content similar to free text.

The Austrian hospital discharge summaries have very few and simple 
fields in the diagnosis part, some basic diagnostic codes and mostly 
free text. This made everybody happy for discharge management.

However this will not support a group that is in the middel of 
developing a diagnosis.

Therefore: What is your usecase?


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


Am 20.08.2012 15:14, schrieb Stef Verlinden:
> I agree that we need a practical solution and that we can't change (at least not overnight) what has been going on for ages.
> As an intermediate solution, it would be great if it is possible to see on which facts a diagnosis is based (or a differential diagnose is rejected) and which protocol is used in order to get to that diagnosis.
> As we discussed some time ago, a diagnoses (for example 'rheumatoid arthitis') isn't a 'hard' diagnosis. Differerent hospitals/ groups of doctors/ regions/ etc. use different protocols containing different criteria to come to the diagnosis RA.
> So one RA diagnosis can't be directly compared to another RA diagnosis unless they're based on the same criteria.
> Cheers,
> Stef
> Op 19 aug. 2012, om 23:52 heeft Thomas Beale het volgende geschreven:
>> In a way, having a 'diagnosis' archetype (whatever it is today, and whatever it evolves into) does do away with trying to define diagnosis - by providing its own extensional definition of data points that some clinical modellers have agreed are useful to collect. The 'meaning' of the word 'diagnosis' may continue to be debated forever, it won't affect anything material. I would call this a good example of practical interoperability.
>> - thomas
>> _______________________________________________
>> openEHR-clinical mailing list
>> openEHR-clinical at
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list