# Adressing of i.e. discharge summaries

**URL:** <https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adressing-of-i-e-discharge-summaries/15437>\
**Category:** Technical (archive)\
**Created:** [16 March 2016 06:11 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adressing-of-i-e-discharge-summaries/15437 "2016-03-16T06:11:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [16 March 2016 06:11 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adressing-of-i-e-discharge-summaries/15437/1 "2016-03-16T06:11:44Z")

</div>

There is a lot of compositions that is created for the purpose of sending the content to another healthcare provider. Discharge summaries is one example.

For instruction health care service request there is some elements and slots added to the protocol part. Here you can add both the requestor and the identifier.

In the Nehta CKM there is a composition archetype for referral. This archetype has some structure under context to add participation and identification of the requestor. I think this pattern would be the right way to do this.

Anyone with experiences or suggestions on how to do this?

Best regards  
Bjørn Næss  
Product owner  
DIPS ASA

Mobil +47 93 43 29 10

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Heath\_Frankel3](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/e19b73/32.png) [@Heath\_Frankel3](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Heath_Frankel3)\
**Post date:** [16 March 2016 07:51 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adressing-of-i-e-discharge-summaries/15437/2 "2016-03-16T07:51:43Z")

</div>

Hi Bjorn,

Yes we have used these archetypes for representing the service request at both the instruction and composition level. Our instruction starts in a care plan so we have to represent the referred to provide in the instruction participations. Then when we send the referral we copy it to the receiving provider participation in the eReferral composition.

Since a discharge summary is a kind of transfer of care then I would expect it to have a similar participation when it is being directed to a primary care provider although this doesn’t need to be populated when it is being uploaded to a national repository for example.

Regards

Heath

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![heather.leslie](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/heather.leslie/32/1980_2.png) [@heather.leslie](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/heather.leslie)\
**Post date:** [18 March 2016 05:08 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adressing-of-i-e-discharge-summaries/15437/3 "2016-03-18T05:08:59Z")

</div>

Bjorn, Heath,

FYI - as part of the openEHR sprint, the results of the review feedback is that the previous COMPOSITION for Referral is now generalised to ‘Request for service’ - [http://www.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype\_1013.1.18](http://www.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.18) - and Discharge Summary has been generalised to ‘Transfer of Care Summary’ - [http://www.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype\_1013.1.1970](http://www.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.1970). You can see this in the history/audit trail for each archetype.

The NEHTA archetypes were aligned with those original archetypes some time ago but have not been updated since.

Regards

Heather

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [3 April 2016 13:32 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adressing-of-i-e-discharge-summaries/15437/4 "2016-04-03T13:32:54Z")

</div>

so are we really talking about ‘ADT’ patterns?