Nancy Mazur wrote:
Hi Hugh,
Hi Nancy
We don't see the proliferation of Templates as an issue because
they should be ALL based on a much smaller number of shared
archetypes. That means that if two different labs use a slightly
different request format (or even different departments in the
same institution), as long as the underlying archetypes are the
same, then the data created is shareable and means the same
thing. This approach allows for the semantics to be rigidly
captured, while giving the flexibility to allow for every clinical
situation to be catered for.
I don't know if its the same for you but here in Australia, every
clinician wants to do things slightly differently!
yes, everybody wants to do it slightly differently, but how are you
going to manage these differences...
Is it really the objective that every clinician makes his/her own
template?
no, Hugh didn't mean that literally - but there is likely to be qite
localised production of templates. However - there are already templates
being standardised at a national and this will likely occur at regional
levels as well (depends on the country somewhat - i.e. structure of
health delivery). Templates for some basic things like discharge summary
will I think end up being standardised nationally - this allows the
generation of standardised message structures for use nationally,
directly from the template.
I guess the idea is that some templates are provided to the customer
as a starting point? How do you manage the versioning?
templates are like any other authored resource - they have to be
versioned within a managed repository, which is the current direction
wth archetypes and templates.
Every site, department then goes on making his own derived template
(is there a form of inheritance allowed with the templates? I don't
remember), yet the core template is being changed... Any ideas?
this is handled (jsut as for software) with managed releases, i.e.
collections of versions of templates and archetypes make up a particular
release. Subsequent changes are included in the next release, so that
each release is itself a stable baseline. There is long-term experience
with doing this for software.
Ok for the use of the generic archetype.
But how is the term set to be constrained in the template? Usually,
that kind of data comes from a query in a database.
Terminology subsets can be created and managed, and then referenced from
a template. E.g. the subset for 'bacterial and viral lung infections' or
somesuch.
The same thing with all the physicians active in a department. I guess
I'm missing a link here between all the openEHR things, and the core
data available of a hospital.
do you mean core clinical data?
- thomas beale
