design description of lab archetypes

Karsten Hilbert Karsten.Hilbert at
Mon Jul 17 16:00:02 EDT 2017

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:31:41AM -0300, Thomas Beale wrote:

> On 15/07/2017 15:36, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > 
> > Receiving systems may decide (or not) to group single-analyte
> > results one way or another (typically the way they were
> > ordered ...) but that is an implementation detail. A result
> > may carry with it a reference to the order to facilitate such
> > grouping.
> > 
> but in some cases at least, you would presumably agree that the panel
> analytes taken together provide a useful picture. E.g. docs tend to read a
> lipids panel as a panel, not just (say) the total cholesterol, but the HDL /
> LDL / ratio (or whatever the current science says matters!); same for a
> blood panel...
> So, having that panel which was performed from the same sample, taken at a
> certain time is what ties them together, not just the order.

Sure. the order would contain a reference to the sample.
Which allows for a back-reference from the result. Or, in
case an order contains several samples, the result would
carry a reference to the sample.

My main point is that results should be groupable in other
ways than via the panel they are ordered under.

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree - is panel only meant to
reference the "probe" or "sample" ?  Typically, "panel" is a
tool for (lazy ;-) doctors, providing relief from the need to
really think about which answers are needed, and hence which
questions (tests) need to be asked.

Of course, results can be re-grouped dynamically even if the
order panel is stored in the returned result but storing more
than one result in a result archetype smells like
denormalization. However, Normal Form need not be the goal,
which I am not competent enough to say.

GPG key ID E4071346 @
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list