oship-dev team mailing list archive

[Tim Cook <timothywayne.cook@xxxxxxxxx>]

[Email re-directed on behalf of Otavio C. da Silva]

 I was wondering about my last question, and today I have looked for
Luciana and Tim to discuss it face to face, as I haven´t found then, I
decided to put things on paper, it might be even better than only
saying, as when we write I consolide some thoughts.
   I read and re-read the ideas of archetypes, saw (actually
contemplate) the archetype chart in the OpenEHR home-page. Yes, there
are not a single word about diseases, diagnosts, nothing. But, do we
really need it? How could we make epidemiological data without the
notion (or the "archetype") of disease? 
   We could easily build archetypes. One for each disease. But something
with this approach, just don´t fit in my idea (or the idea I have built
reading the specifications) of what archetypes are and why they are
created. We will be building archetypes over archetypes indefinily and
it will just make things so confused that it will loose it
"'future-proof' approach" and will be less error-proof.
   It might have a funcional way to do it, without changing the way
things are evolving in the OpenEHR community and making things easier
both for the physician in the front-line than for the epidemiologst on
the back. 
   Suppose a program like TORCH (or what is done nowadays in the paper):
there goes the physician and write in the diagnose field (that
correspond to the diagnosys archetype) something aleatory (we all know
that is exactaly what doctors do), just because it is there, then follow
a list of problems that he supposes the patients have and then what he
actually found. What do you think it is more trustful? I guess the same
thing what the archetype builders have thought, and epidemiologists have
loose their precious time analysing aleatory writings, we call
"diagnosis".
   Instead of it, I propose we define the disease pathologicaly and by
means of their signs and symptons accordingly with the archetypes as we
already have (nothing new untill now) , lets call it the "hallmark" of
the disease we want, but "put" it somewhere else in the program where it
could search the EHR (or even make an alarm as it is automaticaly found)
for the hallmarks we defined. It is the same thing, but different. 
   By thinking in "hallmarks" instead of archetypes, I think we could
change specific points easier (making it future-proof) and include risk
factors with an eye on prevention.
   Am I missing something? Am I making things unnecessarily confused?
   Help me as I am still trying to understand the way things work...
   Otavio
   
   

   
 

________________________________________________________________________
Otavio C. da Silva
Linux user: # 495191
Ubuntu user: # 28559




________________________________________________________________________
Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! + Buscados: Top 10 -
Celebridades - Música - Esportes

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july

_______________________________________________
Oship-devel mailing list
Oship-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oship-devel

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part