When I look at an ACTION archetype, such as Clinical Pathway, I can’t see any attributes defined in the INSTRUCTION_DETAILS in the RM tab. ISM_TRANSITION looks fine.
The information on the RM tab was never intended to be a complete representation of the RM, only to try to explain those items that were significant to clinical reviewers. Of course what ‘is significant’ may well be up for debate.
1 Like
Yes - the link to the full spec is also available from the RM tab.
We should probably have a conversation soon about how reference model structures and elements are exposed in several different tools. While both modelling and viewing, for archetypes, templates and downstream artefacts.
3 Likes
I’d agree with @siljelb on that. I reckon it’d be important for modellers, whether clinical or other, to have consistent and predictable content/operations from tooling. At least, IMHO there should be a disclaimer about that upfront. The links for the RM sections from displayed RM attributes is very convenient but only points out to those that are exposed in CKM. Maybe together with a clear disclaimer that not all RM attributes are shown a link to the whole RM specs could be provided. Another option, my preference, would be to include a toggle with default selected for minimal/clinically relevant (TBD - @ian.mcnicoll ) means vs full set of RM attributes. Kind of compact vs detailed view which is a common pattern across a range of existing tooling (e.g. web based archetype/template editor). As icing on the cake we can also display default view to compact vs detailed based on user’s profile.
2 Likes
I also agree we need to get a better hold in this, and ADL2 will make it easier as it allows us to explicitly expose or hide specific RM attributes at both archetype and template level
toggle with default selected for minimal/clinically relevant
@Thomas actually added that to Archetype workbench and a similar switch facility exists in Better Studio. I agree it’s worth exploring but the difficulty is in deciding what is ‘clinically relevant’. What you see in CKM was what Heather, Sebastian and I thought at the time was clinically relevant. It Is actually powered by a simple config file, not in any way driven by CKM internals and easy to change. However, I have found that you really have to understand the exact clinical audience to correctly shape what is made visible. I added some configurability for this in wt2docx
Definitely agree overall that this is something we need to get better at.
4 Likes
The more complete adl2 solution notwithstanding, maybe we can be more inclusive in the meantime: If attributes are missing that have a fair chance of being ‘clinically relevant’, even if they not always are, we probably should add them. As Ian said, it is a simple config file we can update anytime.
In addition, I would suggest we explain this limitation to ‘clinical relevant’ attributes with an additional box, see image below.
The following is my attempt for a text, please feel free to modify it if you agree in principle:
This list of attributes may NOT be exhaustive: It is limited to attributes that are commonly regarded as ‘clinically relevant’ even though this may differ depending on the archetype. For the full list, refer to the ‘Detailed Documentation’ above.
5 Likes