Yet another OBSERVATION vs. EVALUATION issue

Stefan Sauermann sauermann at
Tue Aug 21 14:50:00 EDT 2012

If you want to be interoperable to "the rest of the world", you will have to sit together with all of them, agree on the information you want to share in which situation, on how it is packed for communication and write this up in an agreement.

Before that day, there will be no safe interoperability without human brains checking each exchange thoroughly, asking back in case of doubt.

There will only be interoperability with those who agreed beforehand.

Hope this helps, greetings from Vienna,

Stefan Sauermann

Gerard Freriks <gfrer at> schrieb:

But what to do with the rest of the world that continues to use the term diagnosis meaning something else?

Gerard Freriks

+31 620347088

gfrer at

On 20 Aug 2012, at 16:30, Karsten Hilbert wrote:

and panic attacks/hyper ventilation. These were my inferences about the

process inside the patient system.

Only one was true and had to found out via trial and error diagnostics

and trial treatments. I fear that the best we can do in most circumstances

(as GP) is to code 'Reasons for ..' and do not use the word diagnosis too


Isn't that what we call 'differential diagnosis'?

Anyhow. I agree that these DD or reasons for should be seperated and

clearly distinctable from the 'final' diangosis, preferably based on facts and


"final" diagnoses mainly exist with the field of pathology/the coroners

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list