HL7 and negation

GF gfrer at luna.nl
Tue Jun 14 02:47:16 EDT 2016

Processes have state models to indicate how they are  (are not) executed.
When an investigation could not be done there must be an abnormal status indicator and reason explaining why.

On other matter is the presence or absence of something.


> On 14 jun. 2016, at 05:56, Heather Leslie <heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> Point 3 is not simply about ‘not applicable’ – it is about the need to assert a clinical statement that the examination could not be done (as opposed to NA or didn’t feel like it), often for medicolegal purposes. It is more than ‘not applicable’ and often needs a reason why to be asserted. Classic example is a patient who has had an eye injury and concomitant head injury – the pupils are one of the physical signs that are monitored closely to track potential intracranial issues and if the pupils are not able to be visualised due to swelling or other trauma you may miss a clue as the patient deteriorates. We need to record that the clinician effectively looked but couldn’t complete the examination due to <insert reason of choice here>
> Agree that Point 4 is a not applicable situation – for this patient only, but the template as a whole might be applicable for most others. 
> I know that it has been requested for many years but we also need reasons for selection of many of the existing RM null flavours…
> Regards
> Heather

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20160614/69de18ea/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list