ENTRY-linked gradings and classifications
Status | Release candidate |
---|---|
Last updated | Oct 26, 2023 |
Pattern description and scope
Gradings and classifications that are closely associated with specific diagnoses, physical examinations, imaging results, lab results, pathology results, etc. For example: TNM, Gleason, Gustilo-Anderson.
This pattern does not concern stand alone scores and scales that are performed for the patient in general, such as NEWS2 or Glasgow Coma Scale. These stand alone scores or scales are generally modelled as OBSERVATION archetypes.
Modelling pattern
Variants
1. Distinct, fixed gradings or classifications
Modelled as specific CLUSTER archetypes for each grading or classification
The CLUSTER can be nested within different ENTRY archetypes depending on the intended context
The version of the grading or classification, if available, is defined in metadata
Examples
Gleason scale for prostate cancer
Gustilo-Anderson classification for open fractures
2. Larger classifications dependent on knowledge bases
Modelled as more generic CLUSTER archetypes to be populated with value sets at run time or in templates
The CLUSTER can be nested within different ENTRY archetypes depending on the intended context
The version of the classification needs to be defined in a specific element
Examples
TNM
CTCAE
Avoid
Generic archetypes for any gradings or classifications, to be constrained in templates - this pattern only moves complexity from archetype modelling to template modelling
Classifications as inline clusters in larger archetypes - this pattern precludes the usage of the classifications in multiple contexts
To be discussed
Do we need to add “Date of assertion” to CLUSTER archetypes, or is this covered by the ENTRY?