Setting clinical modelling priorities for 2020

Dear colleagues,

In the early days, 2009-ish, we voted on ‘10 archetypes to save a life’.

Then this segued into the infamous archetype sprint, which had great effect, although it became more of a marathon with extraordinarily complex models like Medications and Laboratory tests - you can view the current status here. The process certainly took us down some paths we didn’t expect. Many archetypes were rejected or deprecated and others took their place. I am super proud of all who contributed, especially the Editors who were extremely dedicated and focused on the end goal. This modelling work is world-leading. Imagine, 15 different axes were needed to describe medication timing alone - and this timing modelling is generic enough to be applicable to other clinical activities.

In order to kickstart the 2020 modelling program I’d like to offer everyone in the community the opportunity to contribute to the modelling priorities for this coming year.

I’m proposing a 2 step process:

  1. I’ve created a Google sheet on which I’d like everyone to suggest their favorite/most required archetype/s -
    Please include the following:
    – Concept name
    – Description
    – Proposed references or requirements which Editors can utilise
    – Candidate archetype if available (preferably via URL)
    – Proposer details - name/email
    – Comment
  2. Once we have a spreadsheet of concepts then we’ll run an open and transparent poll in this thread and anyone/everyone in the community can vote on how the openEHR funded Editorial resources will be prioritised.

Of course, no guarantees, as sometimes there are blockers that are difficult to shift, but we’ll do our best. You can see the evidence of this in some of the remaining sprint archetypes. But it allows you to have a say and to influence future directions of archetype development and publication.

Kind regards



One family of archetypes which has resurfaced as very relevant in Norway is sexual health. A significant amount of work was done in 2014 in relation to a project for Oslo University Hospital’s STI clinic, but none of the archetypes were reviewed or published. Now, two other Norwegian university hospitals want similar functionality for their own STI clinics, and this is a good opportunity to review and publish some central archetypes from the 2014 Oslo project.

The archetypes that should be assessed, cleaned up and reviewed are:

Additionally, an archetype related to blood borne infection risk should be considered, similar to this one: Blood borne infection risk (in Norwegian only).

1 Like

11 posts were split to a new topic: How to advertise the 2020 modelling program