I’m really interested in hearing your views on reusing (sub parts) of archetypes when designing archetypes.
I’ve been thinking about this for some time, recently with the design of the advance intervention directive (or whatever it’s called this month :p) but what triggered me right now was this example in the EHR model specs: EHR Information Model
The example shows a single archetype for modelling a glucose tolerance test. The observed blood glucose values are modelled inside the archetype. So when querying blood glucose values you’ll have to query separately for blood glucose values as part of this OGTT and ‘normal’ blood glucose values in Laboratory analyte/result archetypes.
I’m not that interested in debating the example design (it may be outdated or ‘just’ an example).
The example with the advance intervention decisions archetype is that we model interventions as part of the archetype while we also have procedure, medication instruction and service request archetypes that could (partly) be reused for this purpose.
I think the main reason for the current approach is that it’s way easier both at archetype design and template design time.
I think most of the tech needed to reuse more parts when designing archetypes exists. Things like clusters, component archetypes and openEHR terminology.
To me it feels not openEHR like to choose just the easy way. I fully agree on choosing pragmatically for single archetypes. But I’m looking to get some different views on doing this in a more reusable way, mostly for intellectual fun and to further my openEHR and health informatics understanding.
(Relates a bit to one of my previous questions about linking data elements in a care plan https://discourse.openehr.org/t/linking-in-openehr-goals-and-problems)