When reading the partID description I get confused by the word institute (eg with pHDept: The public health department or region where the site or institute is located. See also healthRegion if there is a separate regional health care delivery authority).
Is it based on an old version of the ODM as it seems only related to sites table in the last version?
I also wondering what means department here. Is it referring to the geographical subdivision like we can find in France or is it a department in a governmental organization which acts as health authority for the country?
Would you have some content examples for these two variables?
The word âinstitutionâ is confusing. Iâve edited the entry to remove that word. It is clear to say âthe where the site is locatedâ. There is an old v1.1 reference to healthRegion and publicHealthDepartment. I will update those to 'healthRegandpHDept` the V2.0.0. partIDs.
(We welcome feedback because ODM v2.0.0. is still a release candidate.) The changes should appear in V 2.0.0-rc.3.10)
The concept for pHDept and healthReg is to capture the common reporting authorities where the site is located. The challenge is there is a wide range of terms for these authorities. We welcome hearing how you refer to these geographic subdivisions in France.
pHDept refers to the municipal or regional public health authority. The most common term is âdepartmentâ, or âunitâ. Can you tell us how local public health is referenced in France and Belgium? See below for the output from ChatGPT for a question on how local public health is referred in different countries. Is the reference for France correct? If so, we can add an updated description for 2.0.0-rc.3.10.
healthReg refers to the health care planning region.
In many countries, there are different planning authorities for public health and health care. These two attributes seek to capture these two types of authorities.
From ChatGPT:
Local public health may be referred to by different terms. Here are a few examples:
In the United Kingdom, local public health may be referred to as a âpublic health teamâ or âpublic health departmentâ within a local authority or âPublic Health Englandâ at the national level.
In Australia, local public health may be referred to as a âpublic health unitâ or âpopulation health unitâ within a state or territory health department.
In New Zealand, local public health may be called a âpublic health unitâ within a district health board.
In Germany, local public health may be referred to as âGesundheitsamtâ (health office) or âGesundheitsbehördeâ (health authority) within a municipality or state health department.
In Japan, local public health may be referred to as âäżć„æâ (hokenjo) or âäżć„ă»ăłăżăŒâ (hoken senta) at the municipal or prefectural level.
In South Africa, local public health may be called a âdistrict health officeâ within a provincial health department.
If I understand correctly pHDept is for the public health authority and healthReg for the health care authority in case there would be separated.
I think the combination of public health/health care authority and the regional/municipal concepts in the definition of these two variables is misleading then.
Belgium is a hard case. There is the The Federal Public Service (FPS) Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment responsible at the national level for hospitals financing and health care policy. But each region as its own Agency for health which is responsible for topics like health center, nursing home, home care and their funding, health prevention and promotion. So depending on the topics the The Federal Public Service (FPS) Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment can be the responsible authority or the regional authorities or both at the same time like for instance hopsitals funding.
I would then complete pHDept with The Federal Public Service (FPS) Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment and healthReg with each regional authority even though there is no clear separation between public health and health care between both level.
Thank you for the Belgium details. There is a lot of diversity in reporting authorities. From that perspective, the organization for Belgium isnât really harder than others. There are many ways public health and health care are organized. In many places, public health and health care are combined.
How you would use phDept and healthReg would adhere to what we had envisioned, but it is messy. You are correct that there are two distinct attributes:
health care sector: public health/health care;
Level of governmental authority: local/regional/national. We had envisioned the lowest level of governmental authority (which is national for the FPS in Belgium).
We discussed using fields like government reporting authority #1, government reporting authority #2, and government reporting authority #3. Then have attributes in the organization table to describe the different attributes.
The multiple attribute approach would be the most robust and clearest, but there are concerns that the ODM is overly complex (robust) at the expense of easy of use.
Do you have any thoughts?
We do want to wrap up version 2 very quickly. I am tempted to find a middle ground now. Then in the next version, move to an attribute approach.
The middle ground would be to use: government reporting authority #1, and government reporting authority #2, government reporting authority #3, With instructions to use the first for public health for environment and the third for health care â if there are distinct entities.
The idea of using a common prefix name for the variables government reporting authority #1, and government reporting authority #2, government reporting authority #3 will probably ease the understanding and give more flexibility in term of content. And also asking to complete in the correct order: from the higher level authority (national) to the lower (regional or lower).