Reusable Archetypes

Technical (archive)
1

Hi there,
I feel the most important thing in developing suitable templates is to understand the openEHR reference model and its basic concepts very well and to be able to analyze the case and extract required information that may help finding proper archetype clues while designing. It may sounds simple at first glance but is a tedious task.
It seems to me that one should be aware of all existing Archetypes and their ingredients ( data section at least) to be able to recognizing Archetypes that may be used for the case, as bases for Template. Otherwise, How one can realize how to divide or organize concepts correctly and inline with the Ref. Model?
it is really applicable in real world while clinicians are very busy and overwhelmed by their job, even having no time to check emails regularly?
During my studies, I have faced many cases of need for changing forms and questionaries in the Clinic we cooperate with.
Seems that we should force all of our coworkers in Hospitals and Clinics, etc. to learn these concepts in depth and be continuously updated by info about everyday created Archetypes all over the world

-Paria

PhD Student
IDC | Interaction Design Collegium
Department of Computing Science and Engineering
Chalmers University of Technology

Email: hajar.kashfi@chalmers.se
Office:+46 (0)31 7725407
Mobile Phone: +46 (0)707222815
Postal adress:
IT University of Göteborg
412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
Visit: Room Simula B, House Svea, Campus Lindholmen

2

Hi Päria,

Hi there,
I feel the most important thing in developing suitable templates is to
understand the openEHR reference model and its basic concepts very
well and to be able to analyze the case and extract required
information that may help finding proper archetype clues while
designing. It may sounds simple at first glance but is a tedious
task.

I do not think that it is a requirement for knowledge workers to have a
deep understanding of the reference model.

I believe (I hope) that one of the tenets of openEHR is to separate the
clinical element design (knowledge work) from the implementations
(software).

It seems to me that one should be aware of all existing Archetypes
and their ingredients ( data section at least) to be able to
recognizing Archetypes that may be used for the case, as bases for
Template. Otherwise, How one can realize how to divide or organize
concepts correctly and inline with the Ref. Model?

The AM/RM design should make this transparent to the knowledge worker.

During my studies, I have faced many cases of need for changing forms
and questionaries in the Clinic we cooperate with.
Seems that we should force all of our coworkers in Hospitals and Clinics, etc. to
learn these concepts in depth and be continuously updated by info about everyday created Archetypes all over the world

I prefer 'encourage' over 'force' but I understand your point. :slight_smile:

Cheers,
Tim

(attachments)

Displayemail.gif

3

Hi again Paria,

Your concerns are definitely not unreasonable. Building archetypes ideally
needs some reasonable RM knowledge and training, but templating using an
agreed/published set of archetypes is something that could be achieved by
many at the local level with a minimum of training and minimal technical
background.

This good quality pool of archetypes is what we are working hard towards at
present. As usual taking a bit longer than anticipated. The archetype
repository is taking shape and we hope to have it out soon for all to beta
test - getting the openEHR community behind refining the archetypes to an
initial published status. Currently the Archetype Editorial Group are
having an initial ‘test drive’ and the learnings from this are being put
back into the development.

The repository is structured to support templaters finding existing
archetypes via an underlying ontology framework. We anticipate that the
repository will become a significant resource quite quickly if we can get
people motivated to participate – reviewing and creating archetypes
collaboratively online.

Estimates of the numbers of archetypes needed vary. Some guestimate 1000,
some 2000, for a collection of archetypes covering the commonest 80% of
clinical knowledge. But we know it is unlikely to be in the order of 10,000
and definitely not 100,000. Remember that while SNOMED has 350,000 odd
concepts, but we will not archetype the equivalent of each SNOMED concept
but the patterns identified eg a symptom archetype (with perhaps a few
specializations for common presentations such as pain), but definitely not
an archetype for every symptom.

We think that it is achievable to create a reasonable number of archetypes
available in a timeframe of perhaps 1-2 years. The rate of archetype
development can be quite rapid to get them to a point where they can be
submitted to the repository for initial review – this is experience from the
NHS work. With other countries starting on archetype projects, they will be
participating in the archetype review, plus potentially adding to pool of
the new ones created.

A rate-limiting step will be the rate we can get initial archetype
publishing happening within the repository – this is a challenge to, and
for, the openEHR community. Hopefully we can get an enthusiastic response
and build momentum quickly.

From a repository point of view, the intent is next to gather existing

templates to minimise duplication of template creation and facilitate local
users being able to tweak someone’s template to suit their purposes, rather
than start from scratch. These templates will become part of a library of
downloadable artefacts, and not undergo the same type of rigorous governance
that archetypes require.

Regards

Heather

4

Tim Cook wrote: