How to define transitions in the ISM

Pablo Pazos pablo.pazos at cabolabs.com
Fri Jul 27 16:21:11 EDT 2018


Thomas, when I said "mapped to ASSIGNED" was an error, it is "mapped to
PLANNED", the flow that I explained is correct, not the last comment. My
domain "NEW" and "ASSIGNED" are mapped to ISM "PLANED". THe core issue is
the need to define the transition between domain ASSIGNED to domain
STARTED, and do not allow domain NEW to have a transition to STARTED, were
in ISM PLANNED can flow to ACTIVE.

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at openehr.org>
wrote:

>
>
> On 27/06/2018 08:35, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
>
> Hi Pablo!
>
>
>
> I’ll try to answer your question about how clinical modellers solve this
> problem. Have a look at the ACTION.medication archetype (
> http://openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.123). This archetype has 11
> separate steps for the ACTIVE state. In each medication management context,
> one or more of these will be relevant, and often in a way or order that’s
> not possible to predict. We therefore “solve” the problem by leaving it to
> the business logic of the application. This may be frustrating for the
> implementers (I don’t know, is it?), but it makes our work manageable.
> Designing ACTION archetypes is complex in the first place, and I’m not sure
> we’d get any published if we needed to map out all possible combinations
> and orders of pathway steps too.
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I'm testing the AE for a new workshop, and designed a simple state machine
> for and order so my students can use it as basic for more complex state
> machines.
>
>
>
> I have: NEW (maps to ISM PLANNED), ASSIGNED (maps to ISM PLANNED), STARTED
> (maps to ISM ACTIVE) and FINISHED (maps to ISM COMPLETED).
>
>
>
> What the AE is not allowing is to specify the ISM_TRANSITION.transition :
> DV_CODED_TEXT.
>
>
>
> The problem is if I have two states mapped to ASSIGNED,
>
>
> this is not a legal thing to do! If Assigned is a 'careflow step', its
> execution in the real world has to result in the ISM state machine being
> advanced to one defined state.
>
> So there is a problem from the outset with this discussion...
>
> - thomas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-
> clinical_lists.openehr.org
>
>


-- 
*Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez*
pablo.pazos at cabolabs.com
+598 99 043 145
skype: cabolabs
Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj>
<https://cabolabs.com/>
http://www.cabolabs.com
https://cloudehrserver.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20180727/1e0b640b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list