# Instruction & action archetypes? **Category:** [Clinical (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/clinical-archive/153) **Created:** 2007-05-25 12:43 UTC **Views:** 1 **Replies:** 3 **URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/instruction-action-archetypes/14648 --- ## Post #1 by @erik.sundvall Hi\! Some \(possibly stupid\) questions: \- Are there any examples of instruction archetypes with more than one activity anywhere? \- If different activities \(of the same instruction\) point to different action archetypes how should then the resulting usage of the ISM be interpreted? Can they be considered part of the same process with some states in each action archetype? A swift reply to one or more of the questions would be very welcome\. Best regards, Erik Sundvall http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ --- ## Post #2 by @Mattias_Forss1 Hello Erik, I will provide you a quick answer, but I'll reply to the list so other may comment as well. Instructions and Actions are both entry subtypes but the difference is that Instructions tell what the planned activities were and Actions tell which actual actions were taken. They are meant to be recorded separately and since the instruction state machine (ISM) used in openEHR is coded by the support terminology the available states are static and every recorded action will cause a care flow step to be taken (which has an optional description) that defines a transition state in the ISM. Also note that if the action was caused by an instruction the action will hold instruction details that reference the instruction and activity that was planned for the action. Best wishes, Mattias 2007/5/25, Erik Sundvall <[erisu@imt.liu.se](mailto:erisu@imt.liu.se)>: --- ## Post #3 by @Sam Erik We have just moved to multi-activity instructions in the archetype editor - examples that led to this (but are not on the web yet) are consent as part of a procedure instruction, and medication review as part of the medication instruction (it was formerly just a careflow step in the medication action itself but needs quite different data). The state in the action does apply to an activity (mandatory) - as in fact only the activities have states (the instruction can have multiple states based on the sum of the states for all activities). Completing the instruction will mean placing all activities in a terminal state. Remember, many actions will be entered without an instruction - so no activity id is required. I hope this helps. Cheers, Sam Erik Sundvall wrote: --- ## Post #4 by @erik.sundvall > We have just moved to multi\-activity instructions in the archetype editor \- > examples that led to this \(but are not on the web yet\) Would it be possible to get hold of those examples in a message to this list, or in a private mail or by publication on the web or in SVN? \(If possible preferably before Wednesday morning European time\.\.\.\) In the openEHR "EHR Information Model" specification there is a nice chapter with Instance structures that really help when explaining the model\. Would it be possible to add some examples for "Action" there too? \(Does anybody here on the list have instance examples of Action structures available in any readable form?\) > are consent as part > of a procedure instruction, and medication review as part of the medication > instruction \(it was formerly just a careflow step in the medication action > itself but needs quite different data\)\. Thanks\! Nice examples\. I was actually trying to figure out where to put consent in a process modeling situation\. > The state in the action does apply to an activity \(mandatory\) \- as in fact > only the activities have states Do you mean \_implicitly\_ apply to an activity \(since there are no state\-related fields in the class named ACTIVITY except a pattern pointing out allowed action archetypes\)? Maybe I am misunderstanding something here\. > Remember, many actions will be entered without an instruction \- so no > activity id is required Since the allowed states are archetyped in the ISM\_TRANSITION of an ACTION archetype where there are no mandatory references to ACTIVITY instances or archetypes I wonder how the statement "state in the action does apply to an activity \(mandatory\)" fits in\. If an ACTION is recorded ad hoc without an associated INSTRUCTION\+ACTIVITY\-structure, then what is the state applying to? Is there some implicit ACTIVITY? How is that then determined? If several related actions \(for the same implicit process\) are recorded, can they be connected somehow? Is it the "workflow\_id" attribute of ENTRY that connects them? Something else? A related question: Why can an ENTRY only be associated with one \[0\.\.1\] workflow\_id? Is it not possible that an ENTRY can be part of several workflows defined in some external workflow engine\(s\)? \(By the way, wise choice not to commit to or include a specific workflow engine in the openEHR spec\. E Brownes thesis http://www.openehr.org/publications/workflow/t_browne_thesis_abstract.htm referenced in the spec is very enlightning on the current state of affairs\.\.\.\) > \(the instruction can have multiple states > based on the sum of the states for all activities\)\. Completing the > instruction will mean placing all activities in a terminal state\. Thanks for the clarification there too\. > I hope this helps\. > Cheers, Sam It sure did\. Sorry if I am a bit dense not understanding everything and for pestering you and the list with even more questions\.\.\. Best regards, Erik Sundvall http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ --- **Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/instruction-action-archetypes/14648 **Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/instruction-action-archetypes/14648