Hello! Absolute novice here. I don’t fully understand how these Archetypes are supposed to be used but I need to use them for a software project.
There is this generic Archetype: Imaging examination
And there is OCT, which is - if I’m not mistaken - not a specialisation of the generic Archetype, even though it is a different type of imaging examination.
Which of these should I use for an OCT Examination? If I understand correctly, then the best practise for all types of imaging examinations would be to specialise the generic imaging archetype - is there a reason why the OCT archetype deviates from this practice?
The OCT archetype is old and unpublished so probably no one has made the effort to bring it into line with the design pattern of the imaging exam.
Feel free to do so! We’re here to help:)
Yes the current preferred approach is to use the imaging exam archetype along with Cluster archetype specific to the modaility and site eg OCT. In ybe details slot
We woud be interested in collaborating as we have been doing some work on opthalmogy.
One challenge is tbat this kind of imaging reporting has been pretty non standardised, other than DICOM which is much more about backend RIS.
The most recent archetypes representing the current (evolving) modelling approach are found in the Imaging Examination Order & Results Reporting project.
- The OBSERVATION.imaging_exam_result provides the starting framework for all imaging results reporting, no matter what the modality.
- DICOM documentation is supported, although limited to context of a report only
- There is a growing group of CLUSTER archetypes related to imaging of regions or structures that are modality agnostic, where possible.
- The best way to model other very specific archetypes such as Cobb angle and Fetal biometry is being investigated. As are reusable components across regions/structures, such as US vascularization findings.
Published archetypes have been through a peer review process (green tick icon) so are regarded as relatively stable & any changes will be tightly governed.
Draft archetypes within a Project are probably still under development, could change significantly through the peer review process & should be used understanding that they are not stable. Here be medium-sized dragons.
Any other archetypes found in incubators should be considered with caution. They may be historical, or for a specific use case or a very early draft. Here be the largest dragons.
Thank you everybody for your replies - they were really helpful!