# Project Covfefe **Category:** [Covid-19](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/covid19-dev/34) **Created:** 2020-02-27 14:01 UTC **Views:** 6042 **Replies:** 120 **URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/project-covfefe/375 --- ## Post #1 by @ian.mcnicoll Develop the openEHR dataset to support efforts to contain and manage COVID-19 Aims - assist professional assessment of individual risk/ liklihood of symptoms/signs being due to COVID-19 - assist personal/non-professional assessment of individual risk/ liklihood of symptoms/signs being due to COVID-19 https://www.hps.scot.nhs.uk/web-resources-container/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-guidance-for-primary-care/ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/risk-assessment.html This relies on - symptoms - fever, resp symptoms - signs - temperature ?? others in due course - known contacts - risk areas (can be pulled from a dynamic web-service) - Other data - flagged as ReasonForEncounter - suspect COVID-19 Outputs: - COVID-19 Assessment Encounter template - Professional app plus advice ?? SMARTon-FHIR wrapper - non-professional self-assessment app plus advice - backend dashboard for reporting purposes - export for analyltics - Continually updated dataset / template /advice sources and app as new information arrives We also need to think about demographics :frowning: Right off the top of my head !! Do you have any clinical people talking to you? --- ## Post #2 by @bna Great @ian.mcnicoll . I have no comment right now. As I said: We are having a discussion about this and I think it is a great idea to do a community effort on this. --- ## Post #3 by @ian.mcnicoll It would just be helpful after your discussion to know if this is roughly what you had in mind or if we are thinking in very different directions. I'm going to do this anyhow for my conference talk next week Ian --- ## Post #4 by @bna I will come back on this tomorrow. As I mentioned on Twitter we have tried a small prototype with openEHR Forms, Templates and a Questionnaire archetype. I can show/demo it tomorrow if you are interested. --- ## Post #5 by @ian.mcnicoll UK Paydirt ... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-initial-investigation-of-possible-cases/investigation-and-initial-clinical-management-of-possible-cases-of-wuhan-novel-coronavirus-wn-cov-infection https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/868230/2019-nCoV_flow_chart.pdf [2019-nCoV_Minimum_Data_Set_Form.xlsx|attachment](upload://czg4bNYD4VUanjLK7LD6EFrN75I.xlsx) (20.2 KB) --- ## Post #6 by @ian.mcnicoll https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/risk-assessment.html and UK NHS-111 app https://111.nhs.uk/covid-19 I know the guy who runs that team and will have chat to him https://www.hps.scot.nhs.uk/web-resources-container/covid-19-risk-areas/ https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/infections-and-poisoning/coronavirus-covid-19 --- ## Post #7 by @ian.mcnicoll [DHCI - Suspected Covid-19 assessment.v0.zip|attachment](upload://igGHe9WV3ypwCWKSUbLQAxAgTsQ.zip) (208.9 KB) My latest template. I spoke to Silje and she'd be happy to make this a CKM incubator. --- ## Post #8 by @bna Great. We'll look into your templates. Ours is at https://gitlab.com/dips-bna/corona-app Let's invite @siljelb to the channel. --- ## Post #9 by @ian.mcnicoll [DHCI - Suspected Covid-19 assessment.v0.oet|attachment](upload://zRj8Qjo3megNmNilAJ0uho8uLL6.oet) (36.9 KB) --- ## Post #10 by @bna Thank you. We'll look into it to see if we adopt all your crazy modelling ideas 😜👍 Joke aside : We're pretty well aligned on the modelling now. Tomorrow I hope to meet face to face with the infection control group at OUH to discuss their needs and if our current application fill their needs. If yes : we will shape up the models and forms, and prepare a release. This will happen fast. Tomorrow I have an informal appointment with Silje to discuss the models. Just to be sure we are well enough aligned. After this we should go public with the information and the clinical models. We might even publish something on the openEHR.org. --- ## Post #11 by @ian.mcnicoll I'll propose the updated symptom archetype. Might be a wee bit of a battle.
··· On Tue, 3 Mar 2020, 19:25 Bjørn Næss via openEHR, wrote: > ![|45x45](upload://oVAwJh4qOe6ggEGmuNdwQxkITUy.png "bna") > [bna](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/bna) > > Bjørn Næss > > SEC member > > > > > 3 March > Thank you. We’ll look into it to see if we adopt all your crazy modelling ideas ![:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:|20x20](upload://ak8aMxFuqvddpWknqz929OfKDqz.png ":stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:")![:+1:|20x20](upload://a0Vs0X6nLOwD50z9MOav86DYkOf.png ":+1:") > Joke aside : > > We’re pretty well aligned on the modelling now. Tomorrow I hope to meet face to face with the infection control group at OUH to discuss their needs and if our current application fill their needs. If yes : we will shape up the models and forms, and prepare a release. This will happen fast. > > Tomorrow I have an informal appointment with Silje to discuss the models. Just to be sure we are well enough aligned. > After this we should go public with the information and the clinical models. We might even publish something on the [openEHR.org](http://openEHR.org). > > > --- > > [Visit Message](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/project-covfefe/375/10) or reply to this email to respond to [bna](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/bna), [ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll). > > > --- > > #### In Reply To > ![|45x45](upload://hZQcWpQQprPVOi6iPmz7o9dXSBH.jpeg "ian.mcnicoll") > [ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll) > > Ian McNicoll > > openEHR International Board member > > > > > 3 March > [DHCI - Suspected Covid-19 assessment.v0.oet](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/short-url/zRj8Qjo3megNmNilAJ0uho8uLL6.oet) (36.9 KB) > > > --- > > [Visit Message](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/project-covfefe/375/10) or reply to this email to respond to [bna](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/bna), [ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll). > You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode. > To unsubscribe from these emails, [click here](https://discourse.openehr.org/email/unsubscribe/e849af17330aa350f49e45e1881faa4f4f913f37b9771a37dd6b6e292f838431).
--- ## Post #12 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #13 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #14 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #15 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #16 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #17 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #18 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #19 by @ian.mcnicoll Apologies to spamming you all on a Friday afternoon /evening but something very interesting has been proposed, initially by @bna (Bjorn) . If you track back through the discussion we have started building the idea of some kind of international template(s) for screening and public health data capture of COVID-19. some serious conversations are under way in Norway, UK and Slovenia about actually deploying app or apps based as far as possible on a common set of templates. The main use-case which we feel is compelling is the hospital screening for posssible Covid-19 infection -at admission or outpatients. There has already been a significant incident in Oslo, I understand. Whilst the screening tool could be used for community/ GP / self-assessment - this raises (at least in the UK) significant issues around privacy. data governance, consent and hosting itself, that make it less compelling. Bjorn and his team and I came up with a screening assessment template that seems to fit pretty well. After a wee bit of discussion with Heather and Vanessa, I am going to make a few changes to that then get it up into a public openEHR CKM incubator in an hour or so. I'm more than happy to see this adopted and adapted. We have to expect local changes. The second use-case is a a registry type dataset - I am just looking at a WHO data capture form that Better sent over. Clearly we want to line this up as far as possible with the screening assessment. Anyways!! I thought it better just for now to keep this topic private, just to make sure we feel we can all construct a shared vision of what, might and can be made real, but at some point soon, of course, we should go public. Ian --- ## Post #20 by @bna Great Ian! Things have moved fast. One week ago we had this idea and built some prototypes. We've demonstrated for two Norwegian hospitals. The feedback indicates a good match. It's really a huge possibility to show what openehr are, and how the community may response. Thank you for following this up! --- ## Post #21 by @johnmeredith We don't have a live CDR but I will see what we can do/if there's an appatite for NWIS to jump on board. We have a means fo getting this pushed out quickly as a dedicated eform in the Welsh Clinical Portal so this could work. J --- ## Post #22 by @Paulmiller Had a quick look. Was thinking about this over lunch with respect more to a patient self assessment tool in 1st instance but can see why you have steered away from that. Have you had any chats with NDS about this? My thinking is that the blockers to any rollout and scale up would be staff authentication and patient ID at this stage for us, although of course Forth Valley have these integrations now so maybe an opportunity? --- ## Post #23 by @ian.mcnicoll @Paulmiller - that was thinking exactly - great fit for FV, much harder for community or other settings. --- ## Post #24 by @johnmeredith Patient identity does not go away for us but by housing the app within WCP, we always maintain the "patient context" which comrises of NHS number and a varity of hospital numbers form the MPI. It might mean we inialise ehrId's with hospital opposed to NHS numbers where these are not verified - not ideal but certinaly not a major problem either. --- ## Post #25 by @johnmeredith We could, if needed, just commit canoncial XML to our doc repo... :nauseated_face: while we get a CDR up and running. --- ## Post #26 by @Paulmiller Have you spoken to them or anyone at NDS about this yet? Of course introducing a new form / tech / data access at a time of 'emergency' may just add to complexity of what they need to do so I guess it may not be a help! People will I expect want to work with the IT they currently have because, even if it is not very good, they know it works and how to use it. Be worth highlighting though. --- ## Post #27 by @ian.mcnicoll Sure - there may be some very practical barriers and pushback, esp as FV have only just gone live with ReSPECT but if nothing else we should have the discussion. I guees one issue that might make the openEHR option more compelling is that within a hospital setting, this really is EHR data - it will need to be properly stored, versioned, audit logged because folks might be sued down the line. This is quite a different scenario to a citizen-facing tool where there is no datacapture. The other thing is that we can change things very quickly and cheaply as/ when the epidemiology morphs. Who would be best to chat to at NDS? Ian --- ## Post #28 by @Paulmiller Alistair E / Johnny W probably. Use a Teams chat and cc me in. --- ## Post #29 by @bna I try to write out some of the thinkings in the application we made. We named the product "On track of COVID-19" . The document is work in progress and you [find it here](https://365dips-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/bna_dips_no/Ea5pin_dU4dPpIy594K5PycBMpjcretCiUtA6BHqkdPr3A?e=gOxQII). If you find it useful - use it. If you don't - be happy. If you want to improve it - just edit. --- ## Post #30 by @bna Attached is some screenshots from the application we made. I am sorry the screenshots are in Norwegian. Given the "time to market" we didn't focus on the multi-language support. [COVID-19-Tracker.pptx|attachment](upload://7gviQB01QZuQdOARejjzDoaip8m.pptx) (2.0 MB) --- ## Post #31 by @ian.mcnicoll NHS Digital will be releasing an emergency SNOMED Release via TRUD tomorrow, containing new codes relating to 2019 nCoV surveillance and management. A release notification will be sent to the usual relevant subpack subscribers; the text of this notification will be as below: Dear , An unscheduled emergency release of **SNOMED CT UK Clinical Edition, RF2** for February 2020 is now available for download from the following links: UK SNOMED CT Clinical Edition, RF2: Full, Snapshot & Delta download [here](https://isd.digital.nhs.uk/trud3/user/guest/group/0/pack/26/subpack/101/releases) UK SNOMED CT Clinical Edition, RF2: Full, Snapshot & Delta download in “Beta” release file bundling [here](https://isd.digital.nhs.uk/trud3/user/guest/group/0/pack/26/subpack/539/releases) UK SNOMED CT Clinical Edition, RF2: Delta download [here](https://isd.digital.nhs.uk/trud3/user/authenticated/group/0/pack/26/subpack/104/releases) The SNOMED CT UK Drug extension is not released as part of this unscheduled SNOMED CT release. SNOMED CT UK Drug Extension data is published on a four-weekly cycle within the “UK Drug Extension, RF2” sub pack on TRUD. Please review the associated documentation for more details. Release documentation is now only accessible on DELEN, at [SNOMED CT UK Clinical Extension Release Documentation - Delen: Home - NHS Digital](https://hscic.kahootz.com/connect.ti/t_c_home/view?objectId=16607376). **Information regarding this release:** This 28.1.1 release remains based on the July 2018 International Edition, whose release files are also included within the 28.1.1 release package. This is a minor version release; content is identical to the existing 28.0.0 release of October 2019 *except* for the addition of the following codes, terms and synonyms in relation to the 2019 novel coronavirus: **Clinical finding** 1240581000000104 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) detected 1240591000000102 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) not detected 1240631000000102 Did not attend 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) vaccination 1240751000000100 Disease caused by 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) 1240561000000108 Encephalopathy caused by 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) 1240571000000101 Gastroenteritis caused by 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) 1240601000000108 High priority for 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) vaccination 1240531000000103 Myocarditis caused by 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) 1240521000000100 Otitis media caused by 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) 1240551000000105 Pneumonia caused by 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) 1240541000000107 Upper respiratory tract infection caused by 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) **Event** 1240431000000104 Exposure to 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) infection **Observable entity** 1240741000000103 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) serology **Procedure** 1240491000000103 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) vaccination 1240511000000106 Detection of 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) using polymerase chain reaction technique 1240461000000109 Measurement of 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) antibody 1240471000000102 Measurement of 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) antigen 1240451000000106 Telephone consultation for suspected 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) **Qualifier value** 1240421000000101 Serotype 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) **Situation with explicit context** 1240661000000107 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) vaccination contraindicated 1240651000000109 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) vaccination declined 1240781000000106 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) vaccination invitation short message service text message sent 1240681000000103 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) vaccination not done 1240671000000100 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) vaccination not indicated 1240701000000101 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) vaccine not available 1240731000000107 Advice given about 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) by telephone 1240721000000105 Advice given about 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) infection 1240711000000104 Educated about 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) infection 1240761000000102 Suspected disease caused by 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) **Substance** 1240401000000105 Antibody to 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) 1240391000000107 Antigen of 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) 1240411000000107 Ribonucleic acid of 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus) The cross mapping component of this release is unchanged from the 28.0.0 data: it includes only the previously published maps to OPCS 4.8 and ICD10. **NB: Novel coronavirus codes in the Jan 2020 International Edition** A similar emergency update release of the January 2020 International Edition from SNOMED International occurred on January 31st, adding the following 2019 novel coronavirus codes: 840539006|Disease caused by 2019 novel coronavirus (disorder)| 840534001|2019 novel coronavirus vaccination (procedure)| 840544004|Suspected disease caused by 2019 novel coronavirus (situation)| 840536004|Antigen of 2019 novel coronavirus (substance)| 840535000|Antibody to 2019 novel coronavirus (substance)| 840533007|2019 novel coronavirus (organism)| 840546002|Exposure to 2019 novel coronavirus (event)| However, this version of the International Edition can not currently be used within the UK because our current Clinical and Drug Extension releases are not compatible with it. The UK Edition as a whole (both Clinical, Drug and Pathology Extensions) is working to restore full alignment with prevailing current International Releases from October 2020. However, until that alignment and compatibility is restored, these seven International Edition codes should therefore not be used within the UK. When alignment is achieved, and the new International coronavirus codes therefore become part of the UK Edition, the seven corresponding UK-only codes will be inactivated. Appropriate entries will be made in the **der2_cRefset_Association** tables, and so also in our own History Substitution and Query Table products derived from those, stating an equivalence between (for example) 840544004 and 1240761000000102. --- ## Post #32 by @vanessap Hi all, I am adding 2 more files that could be useful for this topic [covid-19-patient-pathway-v2.3.pdf|attachment](upload://6KzRr95k8Cl55e7lvdFGasyxhZt.pdf) (758.4 KB) [WHO-2019-nCoV-SurveillanceGuidance-2020.4-eng.pdf|attachment](upload://kH1BeaCzOygRWhw8itO5rA5wZSc.pdf) (637.5 KB) --- ## Post #33 by @ian.mcnicoll The latest WHO reporting spreadsheets are at https://www.who.int/publications-detail/global-surveillance-for-human-infection-with-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov) I have made a decent start analysing this and will upload the template ASAP --- ## Post #34 by @ian.mcnicoll UK E-MIS GP system ![image|689x500](upload://bhgTk5mDgo2WdSfgsV9yNbIQzpT.png) These will almost all have associated SNOMED CT codes - I will try to find out which ones!! Ian --- ## Post #35 by @ian.mcnicoll [openEHR-Suspected Covid-19 assessment.v0 (1).zip|attachment](upload://doSkhrqanbrjGMFe4CdeYnvpyLE.zip) (279.7 KB) [openEHR-Suspected Covid-19 assessment.v0.oet|attachment](upload://zDlGFLnmW6qarD5lHfBRpUupBAt.oet) (39.6 KB) [openEHR-Suspected Covid-19 assessment.v0.opt|attachment](upload://8ypTbVGWdxCszaqKaVrRyJr09kZ.opt) (707.3 KB) Considerably modified and tidied up Covid-19 screening template. I have tried to minimise any dependency on English - rermoved ad-hoc sections, added some specialisations, used symptom-sign specialisation, and removed the list of countries/regions so that this can be inserted or served in local languages. I've had an issue uploading to CKM for some weird reason that I'm going to ask Sebastian Garde to look at ASAP. Bedtime!! ![image|651x500](upload://ftNkZRfjr89CWvfawgJK60R3Lhb.png) --- ## Post #36 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #37 by @bna @siljelb - there seeem to be a mistmatch on the Symptom arcehtype between Norwegian and openEHR CKM. Norwegian: https://arketyper.no/ckm/archetypes/1078.36.358 ELEMENT[at0186] occurrences matches {0..1} matches { -- Første tilfelle? value matches { DV_BOOLEAN matches { value matches {True} } } } openEHR CKM https://www.openehr.org/ckm/archetypes/1013.1.195 ELEMENT[at0186] occurrences matches {0..1} matches { -- Occurrence value matches { DV_CODED_TEXT matches { defining_code matches { [local:: at0187, -- First occurrence at0188] -- Recurrence } } } } Do you remember why? --- ## Post #38 by @bna @ian.mcnicoll - there is a minor bug in the symptom archetype on the occurences description. ![image|690x138](upload://8FdrfkJzwvpYKgQUCnNhg0cBM5K.png) It's the same description for "First occurence" and "Recurrence". --- ## Post #39 by @siljelb This is an as of yet unpublished (breaking) change in the international archetype that hasn't been propagated to the Norwegian CKM yet. --- ## Post #40 by @bna Thanks. Use of the breaking change at own risk. That's fine for an application related to "risk management" - infection risk :-) --- ## Post #41 by @lvxd Hi Ian, Fantastic Work! It's great to know the work related to Covid-19 and a shared project specially for Covid-19. My team has also been working on modeling Covid-19 for weeks. I thought our work can also been align with the project and we'd like to contribute. As you all knew, China is the place with the earliest and the most patients in the world. Lots of efforts have been put by Chinese during these months, together with many achievements. So far, the diagnosis and treatment guideline for Covid-19 has been updated to 7th edition，And it worked well in Chinese hospitals and saved more and more patients. With the hope of sharing evidence-based knowledge on the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 gained in China in the past two months, our team is currently working on modeling these knowledge and planned to share it with the public. What we are engaged in including: 1. Developing a template for interchange Covid-19 patient data set between applications, the use cases can include some decision support tools for diagnose and treatment,the dashboard view to show the patient data related to Covid-19, and patient registry database collecting patient data for further research. The original Chinese narrative text guideline was segmented,structured, marked up, and then translated into English. The Entities captured from the guidelines were were modeled to the openEHR templates. The dashboard view are also under development and the prototype has already been tested in one hospital in Wuhan. The work has been nearly completed and will be shared soon. From my understanding after a quick glance of the modeling results you have shared, our work may be some bit more with the purpose of supporting diagnose and treatment applications in the hospital, while yours are more with the risk assessment. We can discuss more after we have the first draft after a few days. 2. Authoring the Chinese COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment guideline with Guideline Definition Language (GDL). We have already completely encoded the 6th edition of the Chinese guideline with GDL and tested the rules with patient cases. A diagnosis and treatment decision support system prototype has also been developed for demonstrating the GDL rules. Now, we are working on upgrading the rules to the latest edition (i.e., 7th edition) of the guideline. Our work is about to be shared with the public on GitHub within a few days, and a journal publication is under preparation. Cheers! Xudong
··· -----原始邮件----- > **发件人:**"Ian McNicoll via openEHR" > **发送时间:**2020-03-07 09:24:39 (星期六) > **收件人:** lvxd@zju.edu.cn > **抄送:** > **主题:** [openEHR] [PM] Covid-19 > > > ![|45x45](upload://hZQcWpQQprPVOi6iPmz7o9dXSBH.jpeg "ian.mcnicoll") > [ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll) Ian McNicoll openEHR International Board member > > 7 March > [openEHR-Suspected Covid-19 assessment.v0 (1).zip](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/short-url/doSkhrqanbrjGMFe4CdeYnvpyLE.zip) (279.7 KB) > [openEHR-Suspected Covid-19 assessment.v0.oet](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/short-url/zDlGFLnmW6qarD5lHfBRpUupBAt.oet) (39.6 KB) > [openEHR-Suspected Covid-19 assessment.v0.opt](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/short-url/8ypTbVGWdxCszaqKaVrRyJr09kZ.opt) (707.3 KB) > Considerably modified and tidied up Covid-19 screening template. I have tried to minimise any dependency on English - rermoved ad-hoc sections, added some specialisations, used symptom-sign specialisation, and removed the list of countries/regions so that this can be inserted or served in local languages. > I’ve had an issue uploading to CKM for some weird reason that I’m going to ask Sebastian Garde to look at ASAP. > Bedtime!! > > [](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/6c7ed93d9d9a8a6e1ab914dc3cc8d68e59cb419d) > > > --- > > [Visit Message](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/project-covfefe/375/35) or reply to this email to respond to [vanessap](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/vanessap), [lvxd](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/lvxd), [bna](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/bna), [birger.haarbrandt](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/birger.haarbrandt), [Paulmiller](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/paulmiller), [heatherleslie](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/heatherleslie), [siljelb](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/siljelb), [johnmeredith](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/johnmeredith), [ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll). > > > --- > > #### In Reply To > ![|45x45](upload://hZQcWpQQprPVOi6iPmz7o9dXSBH.jpeg "ian.mcnicoll") > [ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll) Ian McNicoll openEHR International Board member > > 6 March > UK E-MIS GP system [[image]](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/4f0bbfbfb27d7a1cee4745c58a60b62c365f8dd1) These will almost all have associated SNOMED CT codes - I will try to find out which ones!! Ian > > > --- > > [Visit Message](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/project-covfefe/375/35) or reply to this email to respond to [vanessap](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/vanessap), [lvxd](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/lvxd), [bna](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/bna), [birger.haarbrandt](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/birger.haarbrandt), [Paulmiller](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/paulmiller), [heatherleslie](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/heatherleslie), [siljelb](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/siljelb), [johnmeredith](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/johnmeredith), [ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll). > To unsubscribe from these emails, [click here](https://discourse.openehr.org/email/unsubscribe/401f1264e14144f0516d467ba97f517945e0e7f061859f22cddd733f426042f7).
--- ## Post #42 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #44 by @ian.mcnicoll Very good to hear from you Xudong. The rest of the world is catching up to learn from China's experience and your own team's work. The GDL stuff sounds fascinating- do you use GDL 1 or 2? I'd also be interested in your registry /exchange template - we have started work on something simialr based on the WHO reporting dataset. I hope to have a fist cut of that visible tomorrow. --- ## Post #45 by @ian.mcnicoll Many thanks, I have uploaded the Covfefe templates and archetypes to that new account and created a Covfefe repository . For now, until we get some goverance rules/arrangements can I ask you to treat it as read-only, but feel free to replicate the repository if you want to work e.g on translation or local adaptation. Over next week, we can try to come up with something more democratic!! But for now it's mine - hands off! (Change requests welcome, of course!!). We could possibly change that to a GitHub repo instead of a local folder but I have found that can cause some issues. --- ## Post #46 by @ian.mcnicoll Ok folks - move fast and break things time!! @sebastian.garde has kindly stepped in to explain where I was being stupid about CKM. THe upshot is that I will have to change a s couple the new V1 archetype to V0 and break the template. I will also take the opportunity to make sure that the symptom-covid extension is specialised from the existing published V1 symptom archetype, not the version that has the breaking change on CKM. I need to go to the shops before the 'HamsterKaufen' buy up all the food and toilet rolls but will get back onto this in a couple of hours. Ian --- ## Post #47 by @johnmeredith Don't forget there's rugby to watch... Priorities man. --- ## Post #48 by @bna [quote="ian.mcnicoll, post:45, topic:375"] I have uploaded the Covfefe templates and archetypes to that new account and created a Covfefe repository [/quote] Great. Did you bring with you the translated archetypes I worked on this morning? I'll check after skiing. --- ## Post #49 by @lvxd We are using GDL 2. It's very good to hear that we have similar work. hope to see it tomorrow. Ian McNicoll via openEHR 于2020年3月7日周六 下午6:54写道：
··· > ![|45x45](upload://hZQcWpQQprPVOi6iPmz7o9dXSBH.jpeg "ian.mcnicoll") > [ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll) > > Ian McNicoll > > openEHR International Board member > > > > > 7 March > Very good to hear from you Xudong. The rest of the world is catching up to learn from China’s experience and > > your own team’s work. The GDL stuff sounds fascinating- do you use GDL 1 or 2? > I’d also be interested in your registry /exchange template - we have started work on something simialr based on the WHO reporting dataset. I hope to have a fist cut of that visible tomorrow. > > > --- > > [Visit Message](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/project-covfefe/375/44) or reply to this email to respond to [vanessap](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/vanessap), [lvxd](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/lvxd), [birger.haarbrandt](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/birger.haarbrandt), [bna](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/bna), [sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/sebastian.garde), [heatherleslie](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/heatherleslie), [Paulmiller](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/paulmiller), [siljelb](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/siljelb), [johnmeredith](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/johnmeredith), [Morten_Horthe](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/morten_horthe), [ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll). > > > --- > > #### In Reply To > ![|45x45](upload://aD0ZzZMZp9ecV4vHHgslGXtqJdK.png "lvxd") > [lvxd](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/lvxd) > > Xudong Lu > > openEHR International Board member > > > > > 7 March > > Hi Ian, Fantastic Work! It’s great to know the work related to Covid-19 and a shared project specially for Covid-19. My team has also been working on modeling Covid-19 for weeks. I thought our work can also been align with the project and we’d like to contribute. As you all knew, China is the pla… > > > --- > > [Visit Message](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/project-covfefe/375/44) or reply to this email to respond to [vanessap](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/vanessap), [lvxd](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/lvxd), [birger.haarbrandt](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/birger.haarbrandt), [bna](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/bna), [sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/sebastian.garde), [heatherleslie](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/heatherleslie), [Paulmiller](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/paulmiller), [siljelb](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/siljelb), [johnmeredith](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/johnmeredith), [Morten_Horthe](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/morten_horthe), [ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll). > To unsubscribe from these emails, [click here](https://discourse.openehr.org/email/unsubscribe/a6e51850e2740b64b4ff774717a30ca9c3194309728f7591decd5d4ee031cad7).
--- ## Post #50 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #51 by @ian.mcnicoll Woohoo - first draft of the Screening template now up on CKM https://openehr.org/ckm/templates/1013.26.268 and in the Covfefe AD repo Sorry @bna - I might have messed up or lost some of your translations - I had to do quite a bit of work on the specialisations. Let me know if something is missing and I'll do my best to correct it. Ian --- ## Post #52 by @ian.mcnicoll Now with added words https://openehr.org/ckm/templates/1013.26.268 --- ## Post #53 by @bna [quote="ian.mcnicoll, post:51, topic:375"] I might have messed up or lost some of your translations - I had to do quite a bit of work on the specialisations. Let me know if something is missing and I’ll do my best to correct it. [/quote] I will look into it. Feeling really clever now keeping a copy of the Excel sheet with translations 👍😋 It seems like most translations is included in AD but not on CKM. I will do a more formal investigation.. --- ## Post #54 by @bna Thinking out loud about the assessment and symptoms: Postulate 1: Symptoms should be mandatory Postulate 2: Add the "story" element to make it possible to record a story without any symptoms (Question is: How to capture a non-symptom story?) --- ## Post #55 by @bna Question about Travel trip story The only element used is "date of return". What is the semantic of this date? Is it a travel to a region with a known breakout? Is it a travel trip to my friend in the neighbour city? --- ## Post #56 by @bna First quick form based on template by @ian.mcnicoll - labels in Norwegian. ![image|347x500](upload://3CG4TXdGGdxsl63oy4jB2HRpN8S.png) As Ian proposed I have made a separate repo **DIPS-Covfefe** for the models I am working on. --- ## Post #57 by @bna Regarding "Risk assessment" - we have the following SNOMED-CT codes: * 840544004 Suspected disease caused by 2019 novel coronavirus * 840546002 Exposure to 2019 novel coronavirus * 840539006 Disease caused by 2019-nCoV * 170499009 Isolation of infection contact Question 1:Should there be a code for "**No-risk**"? --- ## Post #58 by @ian.mcnicoll It is a good question. It is not in the UK gp termset. There are possibly good reasons for this. I have asked a contact who will know the answer. --- ## Post #59 by @ian.mcnicoll No this is just a generic question about travel. It is not about exposure locations. That is how current screening seems to work --- ## Post #60 by @ian.mcnicoll To answer this question about 'Covid-19 screening negative' now I'm back on-board. I have sent an email to the person who I think is closest to this decision, Dai Evans ant PRIMIS UK. One of the problems of UK GP system information models is that though they are good at handling new SNOMED codes, they are not good at contextualising that, particularly for querying. This raises an issue for 'Covid-19 screening negative' - when, where , what context, so I suspect a decision may have been made only to record 'positive' results/actions. I will look for a generic SCT code to add for our purposes since we control context very easily- THere are some codes for e.g 'low risk of Ebola infection' but nothing on Covid-19 or even a generic 'low risk of infection' code - this is where SCT creaks badly. I am going to add "723505004 | Low risk (qualifier value) |" which is definitely wrong but currently not possible without using post-coordinated grammar whicxh is barely supported out in the real world @Paulmiller - you got any thoughts on this ? --- ## Post #61 by @ian.mcnicoll I did wonder about this and the field is in the underlying Story archetype but I'd like to keep really close to what people are actually doing, asking for in real usage. My thinking was that this particular template is about a rapid screening assessment and that the detailed story is not critical (here) . This template is definitely not about a full clinical assessment, or a diagnostic report (after a positive result) or an outcome report - we will need all of these to help with reporting but these are different use-cases. Hopefully we can use the same archetypes and SCT code to help pre-populate and pull through data. We need to think generally about governance because there will be requests (like this) which do have merit to be added to the 'master' template even if it is very likely that local adaptations must be made to fit local policy/ circumstances. I propose that any 'formal' PRs/CRs be done through the CKM mechanism and we set up a small editorial team to decide on what is reasonable to add to the master templates. I suggest everyone adopts the templates so that they get notifications of changes. @silje @heather - how does that sound? --- ## Post #62 by @ian.mcnicoll This came directly from the screening assessments that I have seen it just means when did you return 'home' and is part of a generic travel history archetype that I built quickly on the basis of a CDC web page. It is very much a generic history, so does have the capacity to take a full history of all places travelled (reagrdless of known risk) However, I felt that this was not quite right for our current use-case where the travel questions are very much directed at known risk areas. Ideally that should be multi-occurence to capture what you describwed bu there is a tech problem between CKM and AD that meant I had to remove the cluster thast would have mde this possible. @Sebastian Garde is loking at the ieeu. If you want I can add the cluster back in to the verison on AD, as it was working fine other than the display on CKM. The detailed travel history, will I think be used in the context of recording/reporting a positive test , where much more detailed open-end questions are needed. With respect to your original question, perhaps we could add an element to the Travel history around something like - Status - "Recent travel' : "No recent travel" - tricky because that will not just be foreign travel --- ## Post #63 by @ian.mcnicoll I have updated the Screening template in AD - for comment (here for now). - Added Recent travel (boolean) to Travel trip history. - Added the Location exposure back into Risk assessment ( this is the thing that breaks in CKM) - Added the 'low rsik SNIOME code to the Risk assessment. - Moved Travel Histroy down to be neaer Risk assessment. - Add Story back into the Story archetype (Bjorn's request) - Found a discrepancy between Risk assessment with has Present/Indeterminate/Absent and Symptom which as Present/Absent/Unknown The actual requirement in the screening is 'unknown', rather than Indeterminate. These are (or should be different). Unknown just means nothing, nada, no information - there is no information for me to observe/assess. Indeterminate (or equivocal) - means I have the information but I just cannot make up my mind whether it is present / absent. Slightly contentiously I have added 'Unknown' to the Risk assessment specialisation - (and constrained out the Indeterminate term fo this use-case - it would be good to have some discussion as to whether this makes sense. It will, of course breakany existing forms or queries. On that, I have started to add/ increment a sem_ver attribute in the template annotations - see Description. This is also very experimental. Though we have good and positive experience with semver for archetypes the requirement is a little different for templates. In particular, handling the V0 templates is more tricky because I'd like a way of notifying colleagues of potential path- breaking changes or any 'clinically significant' changes even if pre-production stages like this. As an experiment, I am updating the semver string for V0 templates as Major version: start at 0 but update this whenever I make a breaking change Minor version: start at 0 but update this whenever I make a non-breaking but potentially clinically significant change Patch: start at 0 but update this whenever I make non significant change This is different from what we currently do, in that the major version would normally stay at 0, in line with the .v0 status, but I think it will be helpful in keeping track of potential major change during rapid dev cycles like this. So many fault-lines uncovered!! --- ## Post #64 by @ian.mcnicoll New Template for Covid-19 diagnosis record (for reporting) I'v built a wee mindmap based on the WHO reporting guidance - some new stuff appeared at the weekend but this is close enough to make a start. Anyone want to make a start? @johnmeredith ? Suggest do it in the AD COVID account and Covfefe repo - AD details above. [covfefe-R.xmind|attachment](upload://kvugXfwFNvKU9IUXqKzIsuSxM0u.xmind) (183.8 KB) There are actually 2 templates involved one for diagnosis, one for 'outcomes - but we can worry about that one later. --- ## Post #65 by @ian.mcnicoll @siljelb @TomazG I suggest we approach Jane Millar and Ian Green at SNOMED, show them what we have done , and ask permission to allow SCT use for these terms in non-SNOMED countries. Similarly when we get the reporting templates going - on their way!! --- ## Post #66 by @Paulmiller Replied via e-mail but only now catching up with the thread here, so for others' interest here are my words: "I’ve had a quick dig around. I doubt you would get ‘no risk of’ a thing, more likely to get ‘low risk’. The specific concept you want I don’t think exists. There is a similar one for Ebola: 707856007 |At low risk for Ebola virus disease (finding)| With a parent of: 78648007 |At risk for infection (finding)| So you might expect to see something like you require in there, as ‘Low risk of COVID19 infection’ I cannot find a more generic ‘At low risk of infection’ or ‘At low risk if communicable disease’ or whatever. 78648007 |At risk for infection (finding)| Has a Parent of: 281694009 |Finding of at risk (finding)| With 50 children but nothing suitable. So I think from a SNOMED perspective your only hope would be to use a post-coordinated concept and that is beyond my ken to deliver." --- ## Post #67 by @ian.mcnicoll Thanks Paul - completely agree finally decided to use a 'low-risk' qualifier code - wrong but best we can do right now. --- ## Post #68 by @ian.mcnicoll I made a start myself - just pulled in candidate archetypes really - on AD -> openEHR-Confirmed Covid-19 infection report.v0 *(openEHR-EHR-COMPOSITION.report.v1)* --- ## Post #69 by @Paulmiller I really don't like the use of 723505004 Low risk in the value set. It's a qualifier value, not something that should be recorded on it's own in a record. would it be better modeled as an 'At risk' section with the finding concepts and another 'Low risk / Not at risk section which would be boolean, I guess? Appreciate that solution is a bit messy, but 'At risk' or 'Not at risk' is what people need to know, and if you bind SNOMED CT to the 'at risk' element then you can only use the 'positive' findings that are available in SNOMED CT. Or maybe it is the openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.health_risk-covid.v0 Risk Assessment element that needs changed? --- ## Post #70 by @ian.mcnicoll I agree. I don't like it either. If you look at the emis screenshot further up you will see where the positive risk iiens came from. We reaaly need something similar to the ebola low risk code or as you suggest, change the risk assessment to low or high internal codes. And move the diagnostic positive codes possibly to a problem diagnosis archetype but that feels a bit dodgy too. --- ## Post #71 by @Paulmiller Sure I think the EMIS form above is clearly mixing up its concepts of risk evaluation, diagnosis and plans. It's not pretty. I do think we would be better with an 'At risk' ' Not at risk' or 'High / Medium / Low' type selection but I can see why we might be being steered along the lines currently implemented. It's not easy and maybe needs the eye of a public health or screening professional From a GP perspective I would want 'Is at risk' (according to current criteria) and thus do things, or 'Not at risk' and thus discharged. Confirmed and Excluded can only be done if Testing has been done. These things would be after this assessment - Assess -> At risk -> Test -> confirmed Or Assess -> At risk -> Exposure -> Tested -> Need for isolation Or Assess-Low risk -> Discharged So anyway, I am sure you know this. The modelling of the process in the EMIS form is shoehorning in SNOMED codes just to have them there, it is not well modeled with respect to how people are likely to want to work. Everything else looks pretty groovy though - well done! I agree with the comments about travel history, as while 'Yes/No' travelled is the important thing along with Date of return, risk grading will be dependent on Country / Geographical location so that is nice to have. OTOH soon it will be 'Live on Earth? You are AT RISK' :frowning: --- ## Post #72 by @ian.mcnicoll Thanks Paul, I did discuss with @bna briefly whether we should use problem/daignosis for this but it seemed not quite right - too strong for what here is quick and dirty assessment. How about using recommendation https://openehr.org/ckm/archetypes/1013.1.1380 and moving the SNOMED codes there, and reverting the risk assessment to low risk and high risk as internal codes? An alternative would be to add a specific element to the Risk Assessment Covid specialisation archetype to carry something like 'Risks identified' - I guess a wee bit like a pathological diagnosis - or interpretation on an observation ?? Actually I think that might work quite well - saves adding another archetype, at least for now. @bna @vanessap - I am conscious you are busy building forms around this - what's your view here? Ian --- ## Post #73 by @bna [quote="ian.mcnicoll, post:72, topic:375"] I am conscious you are busy building forms around this - what’s your view here [/quote] Give me a few hours to respond. Family dinner. Following the thread. --- ## Post #74 by @bna [quote="ian.mcnicoll, post:72, topic:375"] I did discuss with @bna briefly whether we should use problem/daignosis for this but it seemed not quite right - too strong for what here is quick and dirty assessment. [/quote] I have doubts here. The archetype problem/diagnosis is defined as a way to record _details about a single identified health condition, injury, disability or any other issue which impacts on the physical, mental and/or social well-being of an individual._ Being infected with COVID-19 will surely affect both the psychical and social well-being of an individual. In our initial design we added an entry of _problem/diagnosis_ if the risk factors where present. To further qualify the problem we use _openEHR-EHR-CLUSTER.problem_qualifier.v1_ . But then we met some challenges. First we add the problem _840533007::2019-nCOV_ as a working diagnosis. The healthcare provider do some diagnostic process which may end up with a positive or negative result. The positive will be _established_ , but we didn't find a good way to record a negative outcome. This is why we added a new term to the qualifier: _Excluded_ . We will use the _last updated_ element to track the current status of the problem. I think this is very close to the needs here. --- ## Post #75 by @ian.mcnicoll I decided that best location for now is the Rationale element in the covid risk assessment archetype. It's not a prefect match but it feels closer to what we need. The template has been updated in cofveve --- ## Post #76 by @bna What if we create a specialized _Problem/diagnosis_ wit the following diagnostic criteria: ![image|690x125](upload://btvv2XVoL6LlvfEIYuSlR7cHwLI.png) ? --- ## Post #77 by @siljelb I don't have much time to reply right now, but this gets us into the "negation flag" issue. I think we should avoid this if at all possible. --- ## Post #78 by @bna I understand your opinion here. We've tried to draw the process which we want to support. The yellow rectangles defines the state of the problem during the stay. This is IMHO the process and state of the health care issues the patient is evaluated for. ![COVID-19-screening|690x243](upload://p8yReOcBdUTEqHQvod4UZkShjDk.png) How do you suggest to model this? --- ## Post #79 by @bna I wrote a note to re-think and explain my ideas about the design and guidelines for the models and the application. I hope you can access it here: https://365dips-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/bna_dips_no/EecLBF96iGJCi3gfV-bARVIBI8z4kQmT8Ha2zBLlKEUuog?e=3HOvf9 Some content from the note: The screening process has a set of steps and states as illustrated below: ![covid-19-screening|690x142](upload://quHfZj6j26suIkGHrSOmMijfxF6.png) The health risk assessment archetype is developed to cover _assessment of the potential and likelihood of future adverse health effects as determined by identified risk factors_. The archetype may be used with the following definitions: |Element|Values|Comment| | --- | --- | --- | |Health risk|2019-nCoV|The purpose is to assess if the subject is infected by 2019-nCoV |Risk assessment| Not suspected infection, Suspected infection, Probable infection, Confirmed infection, Disproved infection|The possible outcomes of the assessment |Last updated|Date/time when for the last assessment|The assessment may be repeated several times as illustrated above |Assessment method|Initial screening, Preliminary lab,Reference lab|| --- ## Post #80 by @sebastian.garde The problem here is likely the export to OET mechanism in AD: If you look at the (now outdated) oet at https://openehr.org/ckm/templates/1013.26.268/7/oet and then compare it with the branch I created at https://openehr.org/ckm/templates/1013.26.269/oet - the only difference to make it work is in l. 611 the added ***, 'Other'*** in the path. ` path="/data[at0001]/items[at0016, 'Other']/items[at0027.1]" xsi:type="tem:CLUSTER">` I may have picked the wrong clone ("Other") of course...which clone this is for is simply not defined in the oet output, so I can no more than guess (which the OPT generator behind CKM refuses to do). If this is to be applied to more than one clone of at0016 (like "Potential locality exposure" and "Contact with severe resp disease"), then this would need to be done there as well. --- ## Post #81 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #82 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #83 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #84 by @ian.mcnicoll Thanks Sebastian. Very helpful. I think the fix is actually `path="/data[at0001]/items[at0016, ' 'Potential locality exposure'']/items[at0027.1]" xsi:type="tem:CLUSTER">` but I can see the issue and will ask Fabio if he can fix it fast, otherwise a week hack of the .oet prior to upload will work. --- ## Post #85 by @bna [quote="bna, post:79, topic:375"] I wrote a note to re-think and explain my ideas about the design and guidelines for the models and the application. I hope you can access it here: https://365dips-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/bna_dips_no/EecLBF96iGJCi3gfV-bARVIBI8z4kQmT8Ha2zBLlKEUuog?e=3HOvf9 [/quote] Good and scary update from Norway: In one hour we will install the application for test at the first hospital. :heart_eyes: --- ## Post #86 by @siljelb --- ## Post #87 by @siljelb --- ## Post #88 by @ian.mcnicoll Latest WHO reporting documentation https://www.who.int/publications-detail/global-surveillance-for-human-infection-with-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov) --- ## Post #89 by @borut.fabjan No worries. Working on a fix. Matter of hours. --- ## Post #90 by @johnmeredith @bna Is it OK to reuse some of the content in the document for my internal proposal that I'm working on? --- ## Post #91 by @borut.fabjan Hotfix deployed. --- ## Post #92 by @bna [quote="johnmeredith, post:90, topic:375"] Is it OK to reuse some of the content in the document for my internal proposal that I’m working on? [/quote] I would love to see it reused. --- ## Post #93 by @vanessap @bna could you give us some more information regarding the contact tracing process? i am currently doing a process on how all the different templates can be used and when, but i didn't understand yet the process of contact tracing. Would be great if you could elucidate us a bit on this one :slightly_smiling_face: (I will share the process here too later) --- ## Post #94 by @bna [quote="vanessap, post:93, topic:375"] @bna could you give us some more information regarding the contact tracing process? [/quote] Yes. I am in transit for Tromsø now. I will try to write some more text on the contact tracking. I assume you have read latest version of the document shared above? It was a bit updated 4-5 hours ago. --- ## Post #95 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #96 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #97 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #98 by @ian.mcnicoll Latest (and hopefully 'solid') Suspected Covid-19 assessment now at https://openehr.org/ckm/templates/1013.26.267 This is identical to the template in Archetype Designer Cofveve repository. Many thanks to @sebastian.garde and @borut.fabjan for fixing the issue with displaying this template so quickly :innocent: Coming up soon - the Confirmed Covid-19 report template ... --- ## Post #99 by @ian.mcnicoll We would like to make this topic public very soon now. The plan is to create a new public topic which pulls together the latest state of play and documentation so that 'newbies' get a better ideas of whee we have got to, and why. However, we will make this topic public for reference purposes. I will leave it private for the next 8 hours then make it public unless anyone objects. Ian --- ## Post #100 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #101 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #102 by @ian.mcnicoll The WHO Confirmed Covid-19 infection report template is now up at https://openehr.org/ckm/templates/1013.26.271 aligned to https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331234/WHO-2019-nCoV-SurveillanceCRF-2020.2-eng.pdf Phew .. bed time ... --- ## Post #103 by @DavidIngram I was up early and reached 102/102 at 6.30am! What an amazing and compelling narrative of urgent need, community effort and focussed contribution. Very well done and thank you all - it’s openEHR community and methodology demonstrating strong character, capability and leadership. You should feel proud of these efforts. They will make a very significant case study of the clinical, technical and organisational dimensions of how such urgent need can, now so quickly, be translated into realisable systems and services, supporting multiple connected contexts of care that urgently need them. My thanks and admiration. David --- ## Post #104 by @vanessap Hi, as promised to @ian.mcnicoll, this is the current form for suspected case at admission/outpatient from Pathfinder/Better Portal. It's a draft version and can be changed soon for better UX. ![image|136x500](upload://fJ3YJtqFuhRj5IVhj7jznEPsGIx.png) Best regards, Vanessa --- ## Post #105 by @heather.leslie Great work everyone, I'm late to this party :rofl: You may have missed a Travel/trip summary archetype that I proposed last year - *https://ckm.openehr.org/ckm/#archetypeproposals_1013.38.121* Cheers H --- ## Post #106 by @bna [quote="bna, post:85, topic:375"] Good and scary update from Norway: In one hour we will install the application for test at the first hospital. [/quote] Things went fast. The hospital is in production with the application. Hurray! --- ## Post #107 by @ian.mcnicoll [quote="bna, post:106, topic:375"] Things went fast. The hospital is in production with the application. Hurray! [/quote] Wow congratulations - it will be good to get feedback. We need to get this project announced ASAP. Did you see my suggested comms piece in Google Drive? Ian --- ## Post #108 by @bna [quote="ian.mcnicoll, post:107, topic:375"] Wow congratulations - it will be good to get feedback. We need to get this project announced ASAP. Did you see my suggested comms piece in Google Drive? [/quote] Thanks. About the comms piece. I have not seen it. Where is it? --- ## Post #109 by @ian.mcnicoll https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xg3Ae3lgQugpTFb2ck0IG8T8LKQF6i46EE6glhDQLog/edit?usp=sharing --- ## Post #110 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #111 by @ian.mcnicoll I know everyone is insanely busy and @ewan has kindly offered to help get hat document into some kind of press release type shape. I will adapt some of it as more modelling guidance notes to sit on the CKM incubator page. Please contact Ewan if you have thoughts. --- ## Post #112 by @ian.mcnicoll |### Ian McNicoll|14:48 (0 minutes ago)||![](upload://co84kRo5eefwC6rrqw6AdrITTvv.gif) ![](upload://co84kRo5eefwC6rrqw6AdrITTvv.gif)| | --- | --- | --- | |to Ian, Paul, John ![](upload://co84kRo5eefwC6rrqw6AdrITTvv.gif)| https://www.heraldnet.com/news/how-medical-pros-decide-whether-to-test-someone-for-covid-19/ :) I'm going to speak to Trump Ian --- ## Post #113 by @ian.mcnicoll @johnmeredith @vanessap @bna Infection control request message https://project-wildfyre.github.io/careconnect-messaging-r4/Bundle-covid19-service-request.xml.html --- ## Post #114 by @johnmeredith Thank you @ian.mcnicoll Not sure how useful this will be for us at present but i will log it in my proposal. Do we want an openEHR template to support this? (You might have already built one??) --- ## Post #115 by @ian.mcnicoll Probably not - but I haven't analysed that message yet. --- ## Post #116 by @ewan Here is my [draft](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LMuLR9cmUlIEp5Qlfgg7RnAbsM1cGQVq8cSgYicbYoY/edit?usp=sharing). Note the quotes attributed to @ian.mcnicoll and @bna are made up by me and need to be approved or replaced. If you want to comment please let me have the email associated with your gmail account and I give you access to do so. I don't want to allow comments with just the link as this results in anonymous comments, which is unhelpful. Thanks Ewan --- ## Post #117 by @TomazG Hi Ewan, can you give me access?
··· **From:** Ewan Davis via openEHR **Reply-To:** Ewan Davis via openEHR **Date:** Tuesday, 10 March 2020 at 18:32 **To:** Tomaž Gornik **Subject:** [openEHR] [PM] Project Covfefe [**ewan**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ewan) Ewan Davis 10 March Here is my [ **draft**](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LMuLR9cmUlIEp5Qlfgg7RnAbsM1cGQVq8cSgYicbYoY/edit?usp=sharing). Note the quotes attributed to [**@ian.mcnicoll**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll) and [**@bna**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/bna) are made up by me and need to be approved or replaced. If you want to comment please let me have the email associated with your gmail account and I give you access to do so. I don’t want to allow comments with just the link as this results in anonymous comments, which is unhelpful. Thanks Ewan --- [**Visit Message**](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/project-covfefe/375/116) or reply to this email to respond to [**AlanF**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/alanf), [**sebastian.garde**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/sebastian.garde), [**bna**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/bna), [**DavidIngram**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/davidingram), [**heidi.koikkalainen**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/heidi.koikkalainen), [**David-Jobling**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/david-jobling), [**Tomazg**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/tomazg), [**heath.frankel**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/heath.frankel), [**lvxd**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/lvxd), [**vanessap**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/vanessap), [**ewan**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ewan), [**Sam**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/sam), [**birger.haarbrandt**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/birger.haarbrandt), [**heatherleslie**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/heatherleslie), [**Liv**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/liv), [**Morten_Horthe**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/morten_horthe), [**Seref**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/seref), [**varntzen**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/varntzen), [**John_Tore_Valand**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/john_tore_valand), [**ian.mcnicoll**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll), [**Paulmiller**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/paulmiller), [**borut.fabjan**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/borut.fabjan), [**johnmeredith**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/johnmeredith), [**siljelb**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/siljelb). --- #### In Reply To [**ian.mcnicoll**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll) Ian McNicoll openEHR International Board member 10 March I know everyone is insanely busy and [ **@ewan**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ewan) has kindly offered to help get hat document into some kind of press release type shape. I will adapt some of it as more modelling guidance notes to sit on the CKM incubator page. Please contact Ewan if you have thoughts. --- [**Visit Message**](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/project-covfefe/375/116) or reply to this email to respond to [**AlanF**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/alanf), [**sebastian.garde**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/sebastian.garde), [**bna**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/bna), [**DavidIngram**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/davidingram), [**heidi.koikkalainen**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/heidi.koikkalainen), [**David-Jobling**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/david-jobling), [**Tomazg**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/tomazg), [**heath.frankel**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/heath.frankel), [**lvxd**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/lvxd), [**vanessap**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/vanessap), [**ewan**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ewan), [**Sam**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/sam), [**birger.haarbrandt**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/birger.haarbrandt), [**heatherleslie**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/heatherleslie), [**Liv**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/liv), [**Morten_Horthe**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/morten_horthe), [**Seref**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/seref), [**varntzen**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/varntzen), [**John_Tore_Valand**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/john_tore_valand), [**ian.mcnicoll**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll), [**Paulmiller**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/paulmiller), [**borut.fabjan**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/borut.fabjan), [**johnmeredith**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/johnmeredith), [**siljelb**](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/siljelb). To unsubscribe from these emails, [ **click here**](https://discourse.openehr.org/email/unsubscribe/fb4b3e19892cf2f0ca3ee163988efd043dacb5c42079081bab1eea86571fd7fc).
--- ## Post #118 by @ewan I have done it --- ## Post #119 by @bna [quote="ewan, post:116, topic:375"] Here is my [draft ](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LMuLR9cmUlIEp5Qlfgg7RnAbsM1cGQVq8cSgYicbYoY/edit?usp=sharing). Note the quotes [/quote] I have requested access. bjornna@gmail.com --- ## Post #120 by @ian.mcnicoll --- ## Post #121 by @ian.mcnicoll This topic is now closed Please continue the conversation at https://discourse.openehr.org/t/openehr-covid-19-project --- ## Post #122 by @ian.mcnicoll --- **Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/project-covfefe/375 **Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/project-covfefe/375