SV: ACTIONs, OBSERVATIONs and procedures

Vebjørn Arntzen varntzen at
Thu Sep 3 05:26:54 EDT 2015

Thanks, Ian and Sam
I was more concerned about the correctness of storing process information like tracking the various states a document is in, in openEHR-archetypes. It has more to do with the business logic in the software. (E.g. when signed, the form can be sent electronically). But even so, it’s being documented in the EHR, so it’s probably right to store it in archetypes. I’m still mulling over these things. Learning, though..

Fra: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at] På vegne av Ian McNicoll
Sendt: 3. september 2015 10:50
Til: For openEHR clinical discussions
Emne: Re: ACTIONs, OBSERVATIONs and procedures

Hi Vebjørn,

I agree with Sam. You could certainly use an action archetype for this purpose.  The consent archetype developed by Heather for NEHTA actually does this yo track the consenting process. Sorry I can't provide a link - something weird with my browser when trying to access CKM.


On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 at 09:02, Dr Sam Heard <sam.heard at<mailto:sam.heard at>> wrote:
The sick note signing etc can be a set of actions if needed, or the composition can be in a variety of states using versioning. Instructions allow workflows to be traced formerly in the health record rather than in an arbitrary way specific to a particular software.
Cheers Sam
From: Vebjørn Arntzen<mailto:varntzen at>
Sent: ‎3/‎09/‎2015 4:47 PM
To: 'For openEHR clinical discussions'<mailto:openehr-clinical at>
Subject: SV: ACTIONs, OBSERVATIONs and procedures
Hi everyone

What about the need to track a workflow of a kind  – e.g. something we are dealing with right now:  A sick note (medical certificate to inform employer and authorities for social benefits) is needed to be made in the EHR. The form will change status – from started on, filled in, signed, maybe co-signed, sent (the careflow steps are not fully identified). Is this relevant for an ACTION, or is it “something else”? It’s not really medical information, but still related to the patient.

Any ideas?

Vebjørn Arntzen
Oslo university hospital, Norway

Fra: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at<mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at>] På vegne av pazospablo at<mailto:pazospablo at>
Sendt: 3. september 2015 00:45
Til: etienne at<mailto:etienne at>; openehr-clinical at<mailto:openehr-clinical at>
Emne: Re: ACTIONs, OBSERVATIONs and procedures

That is not 100% correct, actions can be recorded without any related instruction/activity.

I agree with Ian, action recording makes sense when there is some tracking going on, if just the measures are needed (from the clinical point of view) no actions will be recorded, just obs.

Sent from my LG Mobile

------ Original message------

From: Etienne Saliez

Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 16:33

To: openehr-clinical at<mailto:openehr-clinical at>;

Subject:Re: ACTIONs, OBSERVATIONs and procedures

In my view when you get any Observation about the patient, just take it and store in the record.Th<http://record.Th>e concept of action is only necessary when some activity is planned and ordered to be done in the next future.Et<http://future.Et>ienne SaliezOn Wednesday 02 Sep 2015 10:56:17 Ian McNicoll wrote:> Hi David,> > In theory you are correct but in many clinical records the date of the> observation acts as a sufficient proxy for activity being performed.> > Where we do use actions is where we need to track the workflow of the> procedure though there is not always a direct correlation between the> procedure tracked and the observation.> > As an example a blood pressure will often be taken as part of a vital signs> measurement. Ie the requested and tracked procedure is "perform vital signs> measurement' every 4 hrs".> > I would use a single procedure action archetype to track the 'vital signs> process' in the same composition as the individual observations.> > Ian> > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 10:23, David Moner  wrote:> > Hello,> > > > I have just had an interesting conversation with Diego during a coffee> > break, and several doubts arose around the representation of procedures.> > > > At the CKM we have an ACTION archetype to represent any type of> > procedures. It is described as "A clinical activity carried out for> > screening, investigative, diagnostic, curative, therapeutic, evaluative or> > palliative purposes". So far, so good.> > > > Now the doubt is about what happens when the procedure is something simple> > and non-invasive that just generates an OBSERVATION. For example, a> > temperature taking. Should we always have the ACTION.Pro<http://ACTION.Pro>cedure instance> > generated together with the OBSERVATION.Temperature? Or do we just need to> > record the procedure "temperature taking" as part of the protocol of the> > OBSERVATION?> > > > If the answer is to have both archetype instances, then probably most> > OBSERVATIONs will allways have an ACTION linked to it. If the answer is> > that in some cases we only need to record the OBSERVATION with a protocol,> > then we are creating a division of all the universe of procedures, as> > typically defined in terminologies such as SNOMED CT.> > > > Thoughts?> > > > --> > David Moner Cano> > Grupo de Informática Biomédica - IBIME> > Instituto ITACA> >> >> > > > Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (UPV)> > Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3ª planta> > Valencia – 46022 (España)> > _______________________________________________> > openEHR-clinical mailing list> > openEHR-clinical at<mailto:%20openEHR-clinical at>> > > >> > rg_______________________________________________openEHR-clinical mailing listopenEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.orghtt<mailto:%20listopenEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.orghtt>p://<>
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical at<mailto:openEHR-clinical at>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list