# IIEF-5 Archetype - availability in CKM and event vs data modelling

**URL:** <https://discourse.openehr.org/t/iief-5-archetype-availability-in-ckm-and-event-vs-data-modelling/16749>\
**Category:** Clinical\
**Tags:** archetype, template\
**Created:** [28 April 2026 13:50 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/iief-5-archetype-availability-in-ckm-and-event-vs-data-modelling/16749 "2026-04-28T13:50:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Firoza24](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/firoza24/32/5906_2.png) [@Firoza24](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Firoza24)\
**Post date:** [28 April 2026 13:50 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/iief-5-archetype-availability-in-ckm-and-event-vs-data-modelling/16749/1 "2026-04-28T13:50:31Z")

</div>

Hello,

We are currently implementing the IIEF-5 (International Index of Erectile Function) questionnaire in a Swedish clinical setting (Karolinska University Hospital), using openEHR and the patient-facing platform Alltid Öppet.

We are aware of an existing IIEF-5 archetype developed within Apperta, but we encountered several challenges :

- The archetype is not available in the international CKM, which prevents reuse and translation

- It includes structures (e.g. “point in time”) that are not supported or are difficult to handle in our target platform

- This makes it difficult to implement consistently in a production setting

As a result, we have created a local archetype based on OBSERVATION, with:

- A single POINT\_EVENT (DV\_DATE \_TIME)

- Questionnaire items modeled as DV\_ORDINAL (1–5 scale)

- A total score (D V\_COUNT)

- Removal of non-essential structures (state) for simplified integration

This will most probably allow us to proceed with implementation in Alltid Öppet while maintaining alignment with openEHR modelling principles.

We would like to ask:

1. Is there any plan to migrate the Apperta archetype to the international CKM?

2. Would it be possible to review and improve the existing archetype (e.g. structure and datatype choices)?

3. Would there be interest in using our adapted version as input for a revised, internationally governed archetype?

We would be happy to share our version and collaborate on a standardized approach.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/varntzen/32/3946_2.png) [@varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/varntzen)\
**Post date:** [29 April 2026 06:48 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/iief-5-archetype-availability-in-ckm-and-event-vs-data-modelling/16749/3 "2026-04-29T06:48:30Z")

</div>

Hi Firoza, and welcome to openEHR discourse!

openEHR always recommends sharing any archetypes that are developed, preferably via the international library (CKM). This can be done through the menu option **Archetypes → Propose New Archetype**.

If the proposer is unsure about the design and would like feedback and to start a discussion, it is advisable to share a link to the archetype here. (In Archetype Designer, use the small icon in the upper left to create a link and add it to the discussion thread.) ![image](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/2/2508086d613a2f59a43069af953651e60aa5817f.png)

This way, we can avoid the situation you describe, where there are made (and potentially put into production) variants of the same concept.

As the philosophy in openEHR is sharing and participating in volunteer work for the sake of the greater good, it is assumed that those who propose an archetype in the CKM are willing to reply the CKM administrators (CKAs) if there are questions on the use case, references, or other questions. And also to join the CKA in moving the archetype towards review.