Phillip, Your plan sounds reasonable (and generous too). It seems like a risk to not have a single location to find current, approved ontologies. Posted files are nice due to the timestamp, but exporting from babel isn't any more/less work as long as it's clear what to grab.
Thanks, Laurel From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Phillip Reeder Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: GPC_TERMS Table I believe the GPC_TERMS table has the most current demographics, diagnosis, medications, and vital signs terminologies. For Diagnosis, I just moved over Hubert's updated modifiers. I propose that this table become the home for the Approved GPC Terminologies. So, that would take care of Demographics Diagnoses Medications Vital Signs Needing: Encounter - GPC_ENCOUNTER_TERMS, is this the table to use? I don't have access to the table with my account so I can't copy it into GPC_TERMS. Procedures - Is there a finalized approved metadata? If so where? Lab Tests - Still no approved lab terminology. Anything else? Does this sound like a reasonable plan? I'll volunteer to continue to manage this table, but I will need input as to which additional terminologies we are ready to add. Phillip ________________________________ UT Southwestern Medical Center The future of medicine, today. ______________________________________________________________________ The contents of this message may contain private, protected and/or privileged information. If you received this message in error, you should destroy the e-mail message and any attachments or copies, and you are prohibited from retaining, distributing, disclosing or using any information contained within. Please contact the sender and advise of the erroneous delivery by return e-mail or telephone. Thank you for your cooperation.
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
