1 / 8

Laboratory Panels &Tests Discussions

Laboratory Panels &Tests Discussions. (a.k.a. Observation Groups verses Atomic Observations). Option 6 – Compound & Indivis . Statements. Specialise Entry into 2 new reference model classes: Compound Entry

hanley
Télécharger la présentation

Laboratory Panels &Tests Discussions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Laboratory Panels &Tests Discussions (a.k.a. Observation Groups verses Atomic Observations)

  2. Option 6 – Compound & Indivis. Statements • Specialise Entry into 2 new reference model classes: • Compound Entry • Used for panels, and may contain data elements, compound statements or atomic statements; Contains shared context. • Indivisible Entry • Used for individual tests, and represent indivisible unit of information about the patient; All context is self-contained or derivable. • Pros • Consistent query paths • Identifies indivisible units of information • Allows arbitrary levels of nesting • Allows context derivation rules to be applied • Cons / Implications • Requires reference model to be changed • Requires the implementation to ensure atomic statements are complete, and independently queryable

  3. Option 6 – Compound & Indivis. Statements Complete Blood Count COMPOUND ENTRY Information Subjct: 7549 ELEMENT: Date: 27th June 2013 ELEMENT: Panel Interpretation: … ELEMENT: INDIVISIBLE ENTRY Hematocrit Result Information Subj:** 7549 ELEMENT: I think this example mixes in elements of the physical model and the logical model. I don’t think there is a need to create logical models like this. Date**: 27th June 2013 ELEMENT: Test Name: |Hematocrit| ELEMENT: Result Value: 42% ELEMENT: Interpretation: |Normal| ELEMENT: INDIVISIBLE ENTRY Hemoglobin Result ELEMENT: Information Subj**: 7549 ELEMENT: Date**: 27th June 2013 Test Name:|Hemoglobin| ELEMENT: ELEMENT: Result Value: 14.2 g/dL **: Derived Interpretation: |Normal| ELEMENT:

  4. The Reference Model should allow both of the next two styles of modeling

  5. Another example of iso-semantic models Complete Blood Count COMPOUND ENTRY Information Subjct: 7549 ELEMENT: Date: 27th June 2013 ELEMENT: Panel Interpretation: … ELEMENT: INDIVISIBLE ENTRY Hematocrit Result ELEMENT: Test Name: |Hematocrit| ELEMENT: Result Value: 42% ELEMENT: Interpretation: |Normal| INDIVISIBLE ENTRY Hemoglobin Result Test Name:|Hemoglobin| ELEMENT: ELEMENT: Result Value: 14.2 g/dL Interpretation: |Normal| ELEMENT:

  6. Another example of iso-semantic models Transfusion Reaction COMPOUND ENTRY Panel Interpretation: … ELEMENT: INDIVISIBLE ENTRY Patient ABO&Rh Type Information Subj: 7549 Modifier: Date: 27th June 2013 ELEMENT: Test Name: [ABO&Rh] ELEMENT: Result Value: A Neg ELEMENT: Interpretation: |Normal| ELEMENT: INDIVISIBLE ENTRY Unit ABO&Rh Type Modifier: Information Subj: Unit 1 ELEMENT: Date: 27th June 2013 Test Name:[ABO&Rh] ELEMENT: ELEMENT: Result Value: A Pos Interpretation: |Normal| ELEMENT:

  7. Modeling Guideline • If the contextual element applies to everything in the panel, place the element at the panel level • If the contextual element applies to only some items in the panel, place the contextual element in each member of the panel to which it applies

  8. Proposed RM for Compound and Indivisible Entries

More Related