- I’d be in favour.
- They are problematic, many settings are country/organisation specific, we miss mental healthcare (cr) and we recognise very much that settings are increasingly blurry.
- I’m not aware we actually use this data other than recording it.
This is a theme I’m spending a lot of time and thought on. Especially since Nedap customers are mostly multidisciplinary teams. And I’m not sure I agree with the current statement. Could please elaborate on it so I can learn what you mean?
For me it makes me think about the discussion around problems. Where we wanted at first to record different names per discipline for the same problem/diagnosis where @ian.mcnicoll convinced us to record them separately and link them together. Audience specific problem name
Off course there are many perspectives and scenarios so I’m mainly curious and looking to share knowledge and align modelling patterns.