# Integration Information Model revamp

**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/integration-information-model-revamp/410
**Category:** RM
**Tags:** fhir, iim
**Created:** [4 March 2020 11:46 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/integration-information-model-revamp/410 "2020-03-04T11:46:34Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 29

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/ian.mcnicoll/32/4430_2.png) [@ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll)
#### Post date: [12 August 2020 17:38 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/integration-information-model-revamp/410/29 "2020-08-12T17:38:54Z")

</div>

Some examples of where we might have used PARTY datatypes

[https://ckm.apperta.org/ckm/templates/1051.57.212](https://ckm.apperta.org/ckm/templates/1051.57.212)

Look at section 7,8,9. Sections 7,9 we could probably handle with participations if we were able to add role to PARTY\_IDENTIFIED + other\_details.

In the lab archetypes we need a place to handle the lab details, lab contact details - names, places, people - hard to squeeze into participations or other RM attributes.

[https://openehr.org/ckm/archetypes/1013.1.2191](https://openehr.org/ckm/archetypes/1013.1.2191) - see Receiver and requestor slots.

Again possibly feeder\_audit or participations might work but we need yo be able to extend PARTY\_PROXY with other\_details and find a better way of making these visible and locally meaningful in the template. It is just really hard to explain these things to devs and clinicians alike.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/integration-information-model-revamp/410)._