Pablo Pazos pablo.pazos at
Tue Apr 25 14:10:11 EDT 2017

Hi Gerard,

I don't have a strong opinion on that area, we have too many cases to state
MUST rules that might apply just to a subset of cases.

I think a more generic rule is to use term / concept codes that are at the
*semantic level* of the archetype node being defined / disambiguated.

If a SNOMED CT code is at the same semantic level as a no-leaf node of an
archetype, IMO it is OK to bind it to the node.

The basic case is the blood pressure, SNOMED has the blood pressure reading
code, then specific systolic and diastolic readings.

Also, there might be LOINC codes that might apply it those codes are on the
same semantic level as archetype nodes. If are too generic or too specific,
might not at the right definition / disambiguation.

Not sure if this is correct or not, it just feels right.

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:57 AM, GF <gfrer at> wrote:

> Pablo,
> I agree.
> Attaching codes to nodes in the archetype is in order to disambiguate that
> archetype node concept/name.
> In addition.
> I think that we should NOT use SNOMED-CT codes for that purpose.
> As far as I know this is the realm of LOINC. So we need LOINC codes to
> disambiguate nodes in an archetype.
> In general LOINC is used to disambiguate the ‘Question’.
> And SNOMED is used to disambiguate the ‘Answer’; the ‘Result'
> This implicates that LOINC must be used in all Archetype nodes that are NO
> leaf-nodes.
> SNOMED must be used in Leaf-nodes and stored as results and queried for as
> results.
> Gerard   Freriks
> +31 620347088 <+31%206%2020347088>
>   gfrer at
> Kattensingel  20
> 2801 CA Gouda
> the Netherlands
> On 25 Apr 2017, at 06:23, Pablo Pazos <pablo.pazos at> wrote:
> Hi Bert,
> Maybe my wording is the issue here since I don't disagree with what you
> said.
> Take into account that I use the word "might" on every sentence, as the
> indication of an ability. Never said that 1. applies to all contexts, or 2.
> that those are hard rules. In those cases I would use "must" instead of
> "might".
> With that being said, when a SNOMED CT code is referenced directly as a
> bind to an archetype node, the purpose is to add definition to the
> archetype, not to use the code as part of the record. That can be done, but
> is not the purpose of having term bindings on the archetype. That is
> explained on the specs somewhere, is not my idea :)
> Cheers,
> Pablo.
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at

Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
Cel:(00598) 99 043 145
Skype: cabolabs
pablo.pazos at
Subscribe to our newsletter <>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list