There are two main uses for achetypes .. one for semantic interoperability and the other for the basis of an OpenEHR. The archetype idea is basically good, but after 15 years of R&D, there are only two archetypes that have been internationally agreed upon. There may be 900+ elsewhere in use ... but for data exchange, they need to increase the number of standardized archetypes. The majority of archetypes in existence are just lab results. So, if you look at the joint examination archetype, it's just a text field. For semantic interoperability it is a question of reformulating existing data into an archetype. I don't think it's a big issue. But we need to wait till everyone else agrees to use archetypes. At present they are mainly used outside the USA.
BTW, if you look at your diagnoses, how many of them have you added the extra details for each diagnosis?? This is the type of work needed if you want the exploit archetypes in clinical medicine vs laboratory observations.
