RM Participations name/role?

GF gfrer at luna.nl
Thu Nov 24 03:59:38 EST 2016


My understanding:
Roles are characteristics of an entity (person, device)
Functions are characteristics of a service/process

I agree with David.
The Statement (ENTRY) defines who is involved in that statement.

Problem:
A Statement is the documented result of a process (Observing, Assessing/Inferencing, Planning, Ordering, Executing)
How to model a Panel/Bundle is documented in a Statement? (e.g. Chem 7 panel, Apgar score, Blood count, Long function, etc.)
Each of the items in the Panel theoretically can be executed by a different participant.


Gerard


> On 24 Nov 2016, at 09:18, David Moner <damoca at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a correct approach. What in the example you call a function can be in fact a full Action that is being done. That is, if the function is so relevant that you can even assign a dedicated participant to it, it should be also enough important to be represented and documented as an individual entry of the EHR: coded, with start and end times, etc. If the case is that a complex procedure is composed by other simpler procedures, then we should document and link all of them.
> 
> I see the case of Silje from a different perspective. What she is asking is if we can document the participants of each Element inside the Entry. So far this is not possible, as Entries have been always seen as a whole clinical statement, with all participants assigned to that level.
> 
> 2016-11-23 20:47 GMT+01:00 Ian McNicoll <ian at freshehr.com <mailto:ian at freshehr.com>>:
> Hi both
> 
> Agreed. 
> 
> Role = pathologist
> Function = macroscopic histopath examination. 
> 
> Ian. 
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 at 17:32, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at openehr.org <mailto:thomas.beale at openehr.org>> wrote:
> Hi Silje,
> 
> The PARTICIPATION class <http://www.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/docs/common/common.html#_overview_3> has a codable attribute 'function' for this purpose (calling it 'function' rather than 'role' came from 13606). It may be that you want to state a 'role' as well, i.e. to say that a certain kind of person is required, and then use function to state the actual function that person is supposed to do in the particular activity in question. 
> I would have expected 'function' to be sufficient for your example - just use 2 x other_participations on the OBSERVATION.
> 
> An example of needing both could be something like:
> role = nurse
> function = foley catheterisation
> Currently 'role' is only known in the demographic model, i.e. on the other side of the PARTY_PROXY.external_ref link. It may make sense to add a role attribute to PARTICIPATION at some point if we need to distinguish the type of person (qualification) from what they do in the activity.
> 
> - thomas
> 
> On 23/11/2016 06:29, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> We’re wondering if it’s possible to specify what the role was of each instance of Participation in an OBSERVATION archetype? For instance in a histopathology result the macroscopic description will often be performed by a different person from the microscopic description. We’re thinking both will be listed using participation, but we need to be able to document which person did what.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Silje Ljosland Bakke
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Information Architect, RN
>> 
>> Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
>> National ICT Norway
>> 
>> Tel. +47 40203298 <tel:%2B47%2040203298>
>> Web: http://arketyper.no <http://arketyper.no/> / Twitter: @arketyper_no <https://twitter.com/arketyper_no>
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org <mailto:openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org <mailto:openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org <mailto:openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Moner Cano
> Grupo de Informática Biomédica - IBIME
> Instituto ITACA
> http://www.ibime.upv.es <http://www.ibime.upv.es/>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner>
> 
> Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (UPV)
> Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3ª planta
> Valencia – 46022 (España)
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20161124/c48f847d/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-technical mailing list