RM Participations name/role?

Ian McNicoll ian at freshehr.com
Fri Nov 25 05:24:24 EST 2016


Thanks Silje,

Good to know the existing model covers your use case but I am reminded of a
previous request to add 'Role' to PARTY_IDENTIFED to allow the exact role
of the party to be recorded in a particular context, where clinicians often
have multiple roles e.g. GP, out of hours clinician.

Ian
.
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 at 09:35, Bakke, Silje Ljosland <
silje.ljosland.bakke at nasjonalikt.no> wrote:

> Hi, thanks for your replies everyone! I think the function attribute is
> sufficient for our use case, as the focus is on what the person did. Their
> profession/credentials can be provided by an external knowledge base.
>
>
>
> BTW, I tried looking this up using the UML link from the CKM, which led me
> here: http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.1/reference-models/
> openEHR/UML/HTML/Browsable/_9_0_76d0249_1109066119163_
> 537311_2210Report.html. I then tried to follow the List<PARTICIPATION>
> link to http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.1/reference-models/
> openEHR/UML/HTML/Browsable/_9_5_76d0249_1118914287896_
> 171737_4134Report.html, which gave me a 404.
>
>
>
> Mvh.
>
> *Silje*
>
>
>
> *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun
> ces at lists.openehr.org] *On Behalf Of *Ian McNicoll
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 24, 2016 9:49 AM
> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical at lists.opene
> hr.org>
> *Subject:* Re: RM Participations name/role?
>
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> I think your approach is perfectly valid but I suspect would impose an
> overhead of complexity that is not always justified or necessary.
>
> In the original lab system the kind of individual entry tracking you
> suggest is probably required to facilitate workflow but by the time it hits
> the ehr, that level of granularity is not needed IMO.
>
> Another good example of the way the health data is summarised and
> compressed as it passes through the system.
>
> Both approaches are valid IMO.
>
> Ian
>
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 at 08:18, 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>:
>
> 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>
> 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
>
> Web: http://arketyper.no / Twitter: @arketyper_no
> <https://twitter.com/arketyper_no>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> openEHR-technical mailing list
>
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_
> lists.openehr.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at 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.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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161125/f9312f54/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-technical mailing list