Hi Tom
Most of these are ‘ontological’ discussions, i.e. discussions about all the weird things that could possibly happen in reality. We need to remember that we are not generally trying to model all that complexity, but just the general structures for what needs to be written down at specific points in time by admin and / or clinical staff. Those ‘notes’ need to be designed generically enough that they will cope with all these variations. Making most of the data items optional is a basic way to do some of that…
- thomas
I understand Thomas, just some arguments make me smile, like this one:
"alive equals not-dead"
I am glad I am just a programmer. 
Following your Kafka reference, we can think of ‘K’ in the Castle, who probably wished he was dead …
Wonderful discussion.
I go with Eric - “Is deceased” or “Has died” ? [ Using both supports future recording of post-cryogenic or other types of resurrections ]
Here in Brazil at our national database with 220 M we use the HL7 demographic approach. I agree this ADT death is different from the death event - I think it would be could to have an archetype to describe the death event - but this is something else..
I wish you all a wonderful 2016! Full of discussions!!
eHugs..
Beatriz
I like that book of him almost most of all books I’ve ever read. If I was not so busy making a living I would now read it again. Every page is a new painting in words.
But now back to business.
I agree also with this, dead is a state, and about the event, f.e. the cause, or other circumstances can be described, if known, in a special for this case, archetype.
I agree with Thomas.
The EHR is about
subjective statements,
by an author,
at a point in time,
in a certain context,
about an aspect (state, event, process, …)
of the Patient system (person and its environments).
Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088
gfrer@luna.nl