Class of archetype 'Gender'
sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com
Tue Apr 2 07:46:23 EDT 2019
I think you are right. As a concept relevant to clinical practice it is generally persistent and would appear in a foundation information somewhere. Traditionally this has been an administrative concept but things have developed from there.
From: openEHR-clinical <openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org> On Behalf Of Bakke, Silje Ljosland via openEHR-clinical
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2019 5:40 PM
To: For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
Cc: Bakke, Silje Ljosland <silje.ljosland.bakke at nasjonalikt.no>
Subject: Class of archetype 'Gender'
On revisiting the archetype CLUSTER.gender, we’ve discussed changing the class of the archetype to EVALUATION. The reasoning behind this is that the original use cases we thought would be relevant for this archetype, such as nesting it within a lab result or an interpreter request, aren’t really relevant anymore. We now believe the archetype is more useful in a persistent composition.
Are there any use cases we haven’t thought of, where it’s necessary to nest this archetype within ENTRY archetypes?
Silje Ljosland Bakke
Information Architect, RN
Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
Nasjonal IKT HF, Norway
Tel. +47 40203298
Web: http://arketyper.no<http://arketyper.no/> / Twitter: @arketyper_no<https://twitter.com/arketyper_no>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-clinical