I'm trying to understand how the auditing is recorded in the openEHR model,
and I'm a bit confused.
As I understand it, changes to a Composition can occur either due to
somebody changing something locally, or due to changes that come from some
external system. Local changes are traced using AUDIT_DETAILS instances that
come together with versioned objects (in the case that the composition is
versioned). But changes coming from external parties are recorded in
FEEDER_AUDIT objects.
(see Section 4.3.2 in the document http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.1/architecture/rm/ehr_im.pdf).
Why that difference? When an external system updates something about an
order, why isn't that just seen as a new version of that order? And if a new
version is created, then everything could be recorded in an AUDIT_DETAILS
object, so why that extra FEEDER_AUDIT?
Can somebody help me in clarifying the difference?
All changes, no matter where they come from, create an AUDIT_DETAILS on a
VERSION object. Additionally, data imported from some other system will have
some audit details to do with its original creation and committal to its
original system. This is what is stored in teh feeder audit.
So e.g. the feeder audit will contain
committed by Jane Doe, 1/aug/2008 12:30
and the AUDIT_DETAILS could contain:
committed by ehr_svr1_importer_v2.5, 3/aug/2008 09:17
(in proper structured objects of course). I'm sure you get the idea.
- thomas beale
Hi,
I'm trying to understand how the auditing is recorded in the openEHR model,
and I'm a bit confused.
As I understand it, changes to a Composition can occur either due to
somebody changing something locally, or due to changes that come from some
external system. Local changes are traced using AUDIT_DETAILS instances that
come together with versioned objects (in the case that the composition is
versioned). But changes coming from external parties are recorded in
FEEDER_AUDIT objects.
(see Section 4.3.2 in the document http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.1/architecture/rm/ehr_im.pdf).
Why that difference? When an external system updates something about an
order, why isn't that just seen as a new version of that order? And if a new
version is created, then everything could be recorded in an AUDIT_DETAILS
object, so why that extra FEEDER_AUDIT?
Can somebody help me in clarifying the difference?
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
View this message in context:
yes, that clarifies it a lot… so the feeder audit contains information in terms of the external system, whereas the AUDIT_DETAILS identifies the external system itself in a sense, or specifies the local module that performed the change due to the changes coming from the external system.
yes, that clarifies it a lot... so the feeder audit contains
information in terms of the external system, whereas the AUDIT_DETAILS
identifies the external system itself in a sense, or specifies the
local module that performed the change due to the changes coming from
the external system.
*Nancy,
it is not even that complicated. Every VERSION committed to the EHR
system has an AUDIT_DETAILS regardless of wht the content is - whether
it got created locally, e.g. by a user app, or whether it was imported.
If it was the latter, then the content contains audit information (where
available) from the source system (which we call the 'feeder' system).
