# RM ideas to deal better with orders, workflow, panels, order sets

**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/rm-ideas-to-deal-better-with-orders-workflow-panels-order-sets/16547
**Category:** Technical (archive)
**Created:** [14 July 2016 15:33 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/rm-ideas-to-deal-better-with-orders-workflow-panels-order-sets/16547 "2016-07-14T15:33:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)
#### Post date: [14 July 2016 15:33 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/rm-ideas-to-deal-better-with-orders-workflow-panels-order-sets/16547/1 "2016-07-14T15:33:39Z")

</div>

A problem the community has been looking at in openEHR for some time is how to deal clearly with order-related meta-data (typically: requestor and receiver ids of various sorts). The topic of ‘orderables’ has been mentioned in some [recent discussions in CIMI](http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Proposed_CIMI_Reference_Model), and as a result, some model changes proposed. One is the addition of an ‘ENTRY\_GROUP’ class. A similar idea may be useful in openEHR. The problems it could address include the following:

- provide a clear place to put order-related information
- better match for Panel/Analytes in Lab data
- provide a container structure that matches Order Sets

See [this page](https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/display/spec/RM+additions+for+workflow+process)with some modelling ideas on this topic.

- thomas