Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


I fixed some of the exam archetypes in a area in the AWB test archetypes. It shows pretty clearly that these all should be specialisations:

Image RemovedImage Added


As you’re mentioning, specialisations being copies in ADL 1.4 is the main reason why we’re avoiding specialisation in general. We don’t have the tools (editors, and especially CKM) to work with ADL2.


I think we should work to reconcile our different approaches to examination modelling before we do any significant work in changing the archetypes. If we do end up with the conclusion that at least some archetypes should be specialisations, and we have working ADL2 tools, then that rebuilding could be very useful. 😊

Wrong Terminology Mappings in Templates


external terminology codes are often found encoded like;

SNOMED-CT::67101007::TX - Primærtumor kan ikke vurderes
SNOMED-CT::58790005::T0 - Primærtumor ikke påvist
SNOMED-CT::369981001::Tis - Carcinoma in situ: Intraepitelial eller infiltrerer lamina propria
SNOMED-CT::369920002::T1 - Tumor vokser inn i submucosa
SNOMED-CT::369912004::T2 - Tumor vokser inn i muscularis propria
SNOMED-CT::369921003::T3 - Tumor infiltrerer gjennom muscularis propria og inn i perikolisk vev
SNOMED-CT::369914003::T4 - Tumor vokser direkte inn i andre organer eller strukturer

What’s the standard behind this encoding format?
Is there any reference/description of this concept encoding format? (Looks like some relative of SNOMED snomed fully specified name?)

I guess it's: <terminolgyID>::<identifier>::<name> - <description>

SBL: This is the format output by Ocean Template Designer when saving a terminology value set to a text file.

Image Added


Aha - in this case, the 'T0', 'TX' etc are part of the term text from SNOMED. They should not be in the Term code string. This is an error in the TD.

There is a plan to allow the format

SNOMED-CT::369920002|T1: Tumor invades submucosa|

in archetypes more or less anywhere you can currently put SNOMED-CT::369920002::T1, but not implemented yet.


I guess this is a good idea, since it matches SNOMED’s own syntax. I suggest both ways should probably be supported for compatibility, since this syntax is used in OETs too. See attached OET from Template Designer:

Code Block
    <Content xsi:type="EVALUATION" archetype_id="openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem_diagnosis.v1" concept_name="*Problem/Diagnosis(en)" path="/content">
      <Rule path="/data[at0001]/items[at0002]">
        <constraint xsi:type="textConstraint">
          <includedValues>SNOMED-CT::12345::Test SNOMED term</includedValues>