We are preparing a more pragmatically oriented (lab departments and orderables) lab LOINC that is pruned to represent only those lab tests reported in our system. If we could get sets of LOINC codes actually reported from all GPC sites, we would be glad to create the union of the sets and then organize around a clinically friendly view of lab LOINC
Jim ________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Thomas F Mish [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: GPC Lab Tree Construction Methodology WISC started with what simply came out of the raw EPIC system (lab components with LOINC when available). -TM On 11/13/2014 1:52 PM, Belay Demeke wrote: Hello All, Looking at the i2b2 Laboratory Test hierarchy construction, it appeared that many sites use different methodologies. For instance, KUMC is built based on EMR, UMNC based on Regenstrief Institute's LOINC tree, UMN based on UMLS, and MCRF based on Harvard(LLB22/i2b2/SHRINE). Our goal is to find out which tree construction methodology is used for the following sites - MCW, CMH, UIowa, UTSW, UTHSCA and WISC. Can you please send us your feedback what methodology used at your site? Thank you, Belay Demeke _______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev The information in this e-mail may be privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the addressee(s) above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please delete it and immediately contact the sender.
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
