As @heather.leslie mentioned at the start of this thread, several things have been found to be needed both in EHR and DEMOGRAPHIC space.
Here comes a (possibly stupid) question from me, related to this discussion:
Why are CLUSTER archetypes prefixed with EHR or DEMOGRAPHIC?
Now we for example have both:
openEHR-EHR-CLUSTER.death_details
and
openEHR-DEMOGRAPHIC-CLUSTER.person_death_data_iso.v0 (plus
openEHR-DEMOGRAPHIC-CLUSTER.person_other_death_data.v0)
If it for example would be the case that some CLUSTER-archetypes like these could be useful in both EHR and DEMOGRAPHIC use cases, could we not then have more neutral CLUSTER archetypes like
openEHR-CLUSTER.death_details.v0 or openEHR-DATA_STRUCTURES-CLUSTER.death_details.v0 that could be used in both?
Item structure and CLUSTER classes are neither in EHR nor in DEMOGRAPHIC models, they are instead in the sibling level Data Structures Information Model
I can imagine many detail CLUSTER instances that one at certain points would want to copy from some registry/catalog/demographic data and into specific EHR documents, It would be convenient to be able to reuse exacty the same archetyped data structure for both.
@thomas.beale and others, are there historical reasons for the EHR/DEMOGRAPHIC-prefix of CLUSTER ARCHETYPES? Was the data structure package and CLUSTER originally part of the EHR model before being moved to a separate reusable model?