Quoting Andrew Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > SNOMED concepts are one thing, the other is to contextualise each > of > > these i.e. the 'concept' of Diabetes Mellitus is all that is > required > > for a diagnosis, however there are a raft of supporting clinical > > measures, diagnostic tests and other items (workflow, referral, > > interaction with allied health & specialists) required to establish > this > > diagnosis of DM. > > I agree that for common problems such as diabetes there > will be archetypes that constrain the snomed terms used and help > with workflow etc, but there is always going to be a need for a > generic > 'diagnosis' of a patient. I mean, the patient walks in, the GP takes > some > notes, makes some observations and then decides you have 'blah'.. > The clinical system needs to be able to save a coded diagnosis for > this event ala > > http://svn.openehr.org/knowledge/archetypes/dev/html/en/openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem-diagnosis.v1.html > > So the question there is how the diagnosis code for > 'blah' chosen from the 300000 snomed > terms.. obviously we can restrict it to all the terms in snomed that > are 'findings'.. but that still leaves a pretty large number of > codes. > > Andrew
Limiting the scope of SNOMED concepts for general practice use would intersect with that undertaken within the GP Vocabulary project to some degree... Is such an activity ongoing and being tackled worldwide; general practice, family physicians, primary care SNOMED concepts ?? Andre. _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
