I have attached an Excel file that contains some analysis of the templates contained within the following PCC / LAB CDA documents:
Medical Documents (MD)
Antepartum Education (APE)
Medical Summaries (MS)
History and Physical (HP)
Antepartum History and Physical (APHP)
Antepartum Summary (APS)
Labor and Delivery Summary (LDS)
Maternal Discharge Summary (MDS)
Sharing Laboratory Results (XD-LAB)
Antepartum Laboratory (APL)
The structure of the bullet-list represents the parent/child relationship for each of the document templates (showing their inheritance so to speak). Additionally templates (section and entry) are also inherited from one another, however this was a little unwieldy in Excel so I removed the relationship.
I want to get the community’s feel on how well I’ve mapped each template entry to the OpenMRS data model. In the oMRS data model column you’ll see text in the following form: structure[class] (condition) (for example: obs[procedure] would represent an observation with a classification of procedure).
I’ve only done the mapping for APHP as I wanted to get feedback whether or not I’m on the right track with the mapping and to explore some of the comments in the sheet.
This analysis is done from the following documents (which are referenced in the “reference” column of the workbook):
PS: The entry templates are grouped by section in Excel which aren’t supported in Google Docs (nor is indented column text) so the document might look more scary than It really is. I’d recommend saving and opening the sheet in Excel proper, Excel Online (the one that comes with OneDrive) or Libre Office Calc.
This is looking good. I agree with the structure in general. I noticed you have used the note object in a number of these mapping. Unfortunately, I don’t think we can make use of the note object in OpenMRS at present. It hasn’t every really been used or fully implemented. See https://groups.google.com/a/openmrs.org/forum/#!msg/dev/mIJ3KjMBCBc/-Yy270Gz4rsJ for details. We could, as part of this work, influence the design and completion of this object so that it gives us what we need and contribute this back to the community. Having a concrete use case for a note object may help drive this development forward.
I have attached an Excel file that contains some analysis of the templates contained within the following PCC / LAB CDA documents:
Medical Documents (MD)
Antepartum Education (APE)
Medical Summaries (MS)
History and Physical (HP)
Antepartum History and Physical (APHP)
Antepartum Summary (APS)
Labor and Delivery Summary (LDS)
Maternal Discharge Summary (MDS)
Sharing Laboratory Results (XD-LAB)
Antepartum Laboratory (APL)
The structure of the bullet-list represents the parent/child relationship for each of the document templates (showing their inheritance so to speak). Additionally templates (section and entry) are also inherited from one another, however this was a little unwieldy in Excel so I removed the relationship.
I want to get the community’s feel on how well I’ve mapped each template entry to the OpenMRS data model. In the oMRS data model column you’ll see text in the following form: structure[class] (condition) (for example: obs[procedure] would represent an observation with a classification of procedure).
I’ve only done the mapping for APHP as I wanted to get feedback whether or not I’m on the right track with the mapping and to explore some of the comments in the sheet.
This analysis is done from the following documents (which are referenced in the “reference” column of the workbook):
PS: The entry templates are grouped by section in Excel which aren’t supported in Google Docs (nor is indented column text) so the document might look more scary than It really is. I’d recommend saving and opening the sheet in Excel proper, Excel Online (the one that comes with OneDrive) or Libre Office Calc.
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Shared Health Record (OpenHIE)” group.
I think the note object will be important for tracking any text associated with a section (it would make sense to store this even if the SHR can discretely import the data). I based most of these on the database tables rather than the hibernate objects in the API J …
Also, this is a question for the broader group; I noticed that shr-cdahandler-api hasn’t had any active commits in a few months. Would anyone mind if I created a branch for an architectural spike to see how far I could get in the next week? I have a feeling that I’ll learn better by doing J.
Cheers
-Justin
···
Hi Justin,
This is looking good. I agree with the structure in general. I noticed you have used the note object in a number of these mapping. Unfortunately, I don’t think we can make use of the note object in OpenMRS at present. It hasn’t every really been used or fully implemented. See https://groups.google.com/a/openmrs.org/forum/#!msg/dev/mIJ3KjMBCBc/-Yy270Gz4rsJ for details. We could, as part of this work, influence the design and completion of this object so that it gives us what we need and contribute this back to the community. Having a concrete use case for a note object may help drive this development forward.
I have attached an Excel file that contains some analysis of the templates contained within the following PCC / LAB CDA documents:
Medical Documents (MD)
Antepartum Education (APE)
Medical Summaries (MS)
History and Physical (HP)
Antepartum History and Physical (APHP)
Antepartum Summary (APS)
Labor and Delivery Summary (LDS)
Maternal Discharge Summary (MDS)
Sharing Laboratory Results (XD-LAB)
Antepartum Laboratory (APL)
The structure of the bullet-list represents the parent/child relationship for each of the document templates (showing their inheritance so to speak). Additionally templates (section and entry) are also inherited from one another, however this was a little unwieldy in Excel so I removed the relationship.
I want to get the community’s feel on how well I’ve mapped each template entry to the OpenMRS data model. In the oMRS data model column you’ll see text in the following form: structure[class] (condition) (for example: obs[procedure] would represent an observation with a classification of procedure).
I’ve only done the mapping for APHP as I wanted to get feedback whether or not I’m on the right track with the mapping and to explore some of the comments in the sheet.
This analysis is done from the following documents (which are referenced in the “reference” column of the workbook):
PS: The entry templates are grouped by section in Excel which aren’t supported in Google Docs (nor is indented column text) so the document might look more scary than It really is. I’d recommend saving and opening the sheet in Excel proper, Excel Online (the one that comes with OneDrive) or Libre Office Calc.
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Shared Health Record (OpenHIE)” group.
I think the note object will be important for tracking any text associated with a section (it would make sense to store this even if the SHR can discretely import the data). I based most of these on the database tables rather than the hibernate objects in the API J …
Also, this is a question for the broader group; I noticed that shr-cdahandler-api hasn’t had any active commits in a few months. Would anyone mind if I created a branch for an architectural spike to see how far I could get in the next week? I have a feeling that I’ll learn better by doing J.
This is looking good. I agree with the structure in general. I noticed you have used the note object in a number of these mapping. Unfortunately, I don’t think we can make use of the note object in OpenMRS at present. It hasn’t every really been used or fully implemented. See https://groups.google.com/a/openmrs.org/forum/#!msg/dev/mIJ3KjMBCBc/-Yy270Gz4rsJ for details. We could, as part of this work, influence the design and completion of this object so that it gives us what we need and contribute this back to the community. Having a concrete use case for a note object may help drive this development forward.
I have attached an Excel file that contains some analysis of the templates contained within the following PCC / LAB CDA documents:
Medical Documents (MD)
Antepartum Education (APE)
Medical Summaries (MS)
History and Physical (HP)
Antepartum History and Physical (APHP)
Antepartum Summary (APS)
Labor and Delivery Summary (LDS)
Maternal Discharge Summary (MDS)
Sharing Laboratory Results (XD-LAB)
Antepartum Laboratory (APL)
The structure of the bullet-list represents the parent/child relationship for each of the document templates (showing their inheritance so to speak). Additionally templates (section and entry) are also inherited from one another, however this was a little unwieldy in Excel so I removed the relationship.
I want to get the community’s feel on how well I’ve mapped each template entry to the OpenMRS data model. In the oMRS data model column you’ll see text in the following form: structure[class] (condition) (for example: obs[procedure] would represent an observation with a classification of procedure).
I’ve only done the mapping for APHP as I wanted to get feedback whether or not I’m on the right track with the mapping and to explore some of the comments in the sheet.
This analysis is done from the following documents (which are referenced in the “reference” column of the workbook):
PS: The entry templates are grouped by section in Excel which aren’t supported in Google Docs (nor is indented column text) so the document might look more scary than It really is. I’d recommend saving and opening the sheet in Excel proper, Excel Online (the one that comes with OneDrive) or Libre Office Calc.
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Shared Health Record (OpenHIE)” group.