Difference between revisions of "Allergy Intolerance Model 20070502"
(→RMIM) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Updates from January Model: | + | [[Allergy_Intolerance| up to Allergy Intolerance]] |
| + | ==Updates from January Model:== | ||
| − | + | * Formatting changes -- just moved the participants to the left | |
and act relations mostly to the right to make it look a little more | and act relations mostly to the right to make it look a little more | ||
readable. | readable. | ||
| − | + | * changed the clone name of "exposure" to "substance administration" to | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
avoid confusion with Public Health use of the term. | avoid confusion with Public Health use of the term. | ||
| − | + | * moved "startsAfterStart>substanceAdmin" to off the reaction, not the | |
| − | |||
judgment of allergy. THe rational is that technically the judgment would also come after the | judgment of allergy. THe rational is that technically the judgment would also come after the | ||
substance administration, but I think it's more logical for it to be off | substance administration, but I think it's more logical for it to be off | ||
| Line 19: | Line 17: | ||
before the substanceAdministration the substance was probably not | before the substanceAdministration the substance was probably not | ||
causative. | causative. | ||
| − | + | * Added allergy list to the model and a specific NKA observation to the model. | |
| − | + | The rational is that in going over use cases, specific negation is a major use case. Some negation such as "no latex | |
| − | |||
| − | specific negation is a major use case. Some negation such as "no latex | ||
allergies can be represented by simply setting the negationInd on the | allergies can be represented by simply setting the negationInd on the | ||
allergy observation, but the assertion of "No known allergies" off to me | allergy observation, but the assertion of "No known allergies" off to me | ||
| Line 29: | Line 25: | ||
list level. You should not have this observation if you have other | list level. You should not have this observation if you have other | ||
allergy concerns. | allergy concerns. | ||
| − | |||
Other things to consider are: | Other things to consider are: | ||
| − | + | * I wonder if the support observation should really point at a CMET for | |
clinical statement or lab domain. This would be to cover the case where | clinical statement or lab domain. This would be to cover the case where | ||
you have a complex result (ie a panel, etc) | you have a complex result (ie a panel, etc) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==RMIM== | ||
| + | *[[Image:REPC_RM000320_v0705.2_AllergyIntolerance.jpg|Allergy/Intolerance as of May 2, 2007]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[[media:REPC_RM000320_v0705.2_AllergyIntolerance.vsd|visio]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:01, 2 May 2007
Updates from January Model:
- Formatting changes -- just moved the participants to the left
and act relations mostly to the right to make it look a little more readable.
- changed the clone name of "exposure" to "substance administration" to
avoid confusion with Public Health use of the term.
- moved "startsAfterStart>substanceAdmin" to off the reaction, not the
judgment of allergy. THe rational is that technically the judgment would also come after the substance administration, but I think it's more logical for it to be off the reaction. In this manor, it's almost like support for the assertion. The statement is something like: "I assert that there is an allergy condition with a CAGNT of X because there was a reaction Y, and it occurred (shortly) after a substance administration to X" It would not make sense if the SAS wasn't between these 2. If the rash occurred before the substanceAdministration the substance was probably not causative.
- Added allergy list to the model and a specific NKA observation to the model.
The rational is that in going over use cases, specific negation is a major use case. Some negation such as "no latex allergies can be represented by simply setting the negationInd on the allergy observation, but the assertion of "No known allergies" off to me to have in a concern. It basically asserts that there are NO concerns here. To do this, I think there needs to be a single observation at the list level. You should not have this observation if you have other allergy concerns.
Other things to consider are:
- I wonder if the support observation should really point at a CMET for
clinical statement or lab domain. This would be to cover the case where you have a complex result (ie a panel, etc)
