It was my impression and UMN's recommendation to not include dispensed since we only have inpatient dispensed medications
Bonnie L. Westra, PhD, RN, FAAN, FACMI Associate Professor, University of Minnesota, School of Nursing & Institute for Health Informatics Director, Center for Nursing Informatics Location - WDH 6-155 P - 612-625-4470, Fax - 612-625-7091 email - [email protected] Mail - WDH 5-140, 308 Harvard St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Nathan Graham <[email protected]> wrote: > Phillip, > > > > Regarding the medication modifiers: The modifiers weren’t showing up in > the KU hierarchy because of an oversight/bug which I’ve addressed (er, > manually fixed up) – see ticket 37 comment 16 > <https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/37#comment:16>. > > > > As for GPC medications, there aren’t any modifiers on Babel at this time. > I guess I didn’t realize that we had decided on what medication modifiers > we needed to support for GPC. It looks like the CDM v2 draft has a > “dispensing” table but I’m not sure it aligns with the KU modifier > “dispensed”. The CDM says “outpatient pharmacy dispensing…not commonly > captured within healthcare systems”. At KU, the “dispensed” modifier > basically comes from the “ORDER_DISP_INFO” table Clarity Data Dictionary > says: “This table contains dispense information for orders” but as I > understood it, we (KU) don’t have outpatient pharmacy information. I > thought we had a discussion about dispensed medications with respect to the > CDM but I wasn’t able to find record of it in the meeting notes from the > past few weeks. It’s entirely possible I’m missing something right now. > > > > I wonder if I should just include all the modifiers we have at KUMC? Or > does that add more complexity than we need/want? > > > > Regards, > > > > Nathan > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Dan Connolly > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:13 PM > *To:* Phillip Reeder > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: GPC Terminology V1 > > > > Yes, it's good to get these details nailed down, Phillip. > > The GPC standard for demographics has never been quite baked. We have > never closed #67 > <https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/67>. Yes, I hope > we can converge on what *Hubert* uploads, and I hope he uploads it soon. > I didn't negotiate a specific date with him, but I sure hope it's in the > next few days. > > I'm not sure what's up with modifiers on babel, but we've seen problems > with that in the past. I heard *Nathan* say he made a note to look into > it. I hope the problem is just on babel and if you download the CSV from > the central desktop and deploy it locally, you'll get the modifiers. > > Vitals in babel are labelled "GPC: Clinical measurements". Your question > suggests that's not very usable. Note that #23 > <https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/23> has been > re-opened because Jim C. plans to (have *Hubert*) update some details of > the LOINC mapping. > > Yes, the tumor registry should get the same treatment as the rest. Russ > and Nathan and I have said "yes, we should do that" a few times; I just > promoted it to a ticket: #185 > <https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/185>. > > > -- > Dan > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Phillip Reeder [[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:53 PM > *To:* Dan Connolly > *Subject:* GPC Terminology V1 > > Dan, > > Based on today’s call, I want to make sure that I understand where we are > on the 5 terminologies we are targeting for Milestone data-domains2. > > > > Demographics – Are we using the PCORI Demographics, plus "age in days"? > I’m not clear on what the GPC standard is but maybe when Hubert uploads his > piece to babel it will be more clear. Is there a date for this? > > Diagnosis - ICD9 Hierarchy built in babel, Approved. > > Medications - Medication Hierarchy built in babel. I think the modifiers > still need to be added to this hierarchy. > > Vitals - Is there a proposed GPC vital signs terminology? I’m not seeing > it in Babel. > > Tumor Registry - We are all using the same KU code so we should, in > theory, have the same paths/codes. But since the terminology is generated > from the data, is there a chance we won’t see all possible values from a > given site? Can someone produce a GPC Tumor Registry terminology as the > standard and put it on Babel as GPC:Tumor Registry? Or as an interim way > to show it, maybe just duplicate KUMC’s terminology and put GPC before it > so we see that it’s there. > > > > Does my understanding seem correct as to where we are? > > > > Thanks, > > Phillip > > > > Feel free to reply to the group, or just to me if I’m way off:). > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > UT Southwestern Medical Center > The future of medicine, today. > > _______________________________________________ > Gpc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
