Dear all,
The archetype ‘4AT’ has been through one review round, and the editors recommend it for publication.
If any objections or comments, please add them here in due time for planned publication on April 11th.
Kind regards on behalf of the editors,
Mikkel Grønmo
Nice work on proposing a publication. I’m sorry to be so late with this comment but I am seriously concerned about the archetype ID “ four_a_t”(.v0) it’s so generic that it’s hard to understand for implementers. And it has a serious chance of running into another archetype that wants to use this name. I looked at the qouted source and it’s not easy to pick a better id. But I think we should try to add something. E.g. “Assessment test
for delirium & cognitive impairment“
So: “four_a_t_assessment_test_for_delirium_&_cognitive_impairment” maybe this is too long.
“four_a_t_assessment” is the shortest I think may be acceptable but it still has a chance of “overloading”.
I think I prefer
“four_a_t_delirium_test” but maybe that too far away from the original name, leaving out both “assesment” and “cognitive impairment” and changing from a noun to a adjective (or whatever the right terms are in English).
Hi Joost,
The clinical concept is known as 4AT - the original source: https://www.the4at.com/
The archetype reflects this validated score and scale as faithfully as possible, including the concept name being simplified only ‘4AT’ after reviewer feedback.
As you well know, the archetype ID is used to differentiate this archetype from others. The added benefit of making it meaningful to implementers is helpful, but the Editors have discussed the naming quite extensively, especially as numbers are not allowed and the ‘T’ within the acronym represents ‘test’. We have elected to the archetype to keep it aligned with the archetyped concept as is our usual pattern.
Renaming with any of your suggestions is always possible but breaks all our other naming principles which we understand are priorities for implementers - keeping the ID as short as possible while ensuring it is unique and keeping it aligned with the concept. I’d actually be concerned that the ‘4AT’ concept is so far from your suggestions that it reduces clarity for implementers.
That said, it has recently been updated from OBS.four_at to OBS.four_a_t but if you can see any added value, I could be persuaded that OBS.four_a_test might be OK too.
Thanks Heather. I agree with those naming principles. My concern is mostly with (future) duplicates for the same ID. “OBS.four_a_test” Sounds miles better in that regard. Because it narrows plausible duplicates to only archetypes that are test and do something with four “a”s. While four a t could be many things.
OBS.four_a_test it is then.
Adding ID changes to the Norwegian CKM aswell.
The archetype is now published.