Yet another OBSERVATION vs. EVALUATION issue
sauermann at technikum-wien.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,
Gerard Freriks <gfrer at luna.nl> schrieb:
But what to do with the rest of the world that continues to use the term diagnosis meaning something else?
gfrer at luna.nl
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...
More information about the openEHR-clinical