Hi, Dileep

There are nodes in archetypes where it could, and perhaps should, be 
recommended to use terminology where possible. In many of them, there already 
is such recommendations. For example in Problem/Diagnosis name in the archetype 
Problem/Diagnosis:
Identification of the problem or diagnosis, by name.
Comment: Coding of the name of the problem or diagnosis with a terminology is 
preferred, where possible.

And in Severity category in Symptom/Sign, the coded text are already binded to 
SNOMED-CT:

  *   Mild [The intensity of the symptom or sign does not cause interference 
with normal activity.]
[SNOMED-CT::162468002] (Symptom mild (finding))
  *   Moderate [The intensity of the symptom or sign causes interference with 
normal activity.]
[SNOMED-CT::162469005] (Symptom moderate (finding))
  *   Severe [The intensity of the symptom or sign causes prevents normal 
activity.]
[SNOMED-CT::162470006] (Symptom severe (finding))

If it is preferred to use a local valueset instead, or to extent the number of 
codes, the datatype is a choice of either Coded text, or Text, to allow for 
this. It's mentioned in the comment of that element:
Comment: Defining values such as mild, moderate or severe in such a way that is 
applicable to multiple symptoms or signs plus allows multiple users to 
interpret and record them consistently is not easy. Some organisations extend 
the value set further with inclusion of additional values such as 'Trivial' and 
'Very severe', and/or 'Mild-Moderate' and 'Moderate-Severe', adds to the 
definitional difficulty and may also worsen inter-recorder reliability issues. 
Use of 'Life-threatening' and 'Fatal' is also often considered as part of this 
value set, although from a pure point of view it may actually reflect an 
outcome rather than a severity. In view of the above, keeping to a well-defined 
but smaller list is preferred and so the mild/moderate/severe value set is 
offered, however the choice of other text allows for other value sets to be 
included at this data element in a template. Note: more specific grading of 
severity can be recorded using the 'Specific details' SLOT

Terminologies come and go, what's popular today may not be popular tomorrow. 
And as for SNOMED, there is a substantional fee to be paid to use them, which 
not all countries in the world are willing (or able) to pay. This is why there 
are mostly recommendations to use*a terminology*, and not a specific named one.

If you find elements where it should be mentioned to use terminology where 
possible, please add a change request for that archetype.

[cid:[email protected]][cid:[email protected]]



Kind regards
Vebjørn Arntzen

Enterprise architect, RN
ICT-dept, Oslo universitetssykehus HF and
Coordinator, National governance of archetypes in Norway, Nasjonal IKT HF

Tlf: +47 41 43 75 89
Primary email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
email2: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Twitter: @ArntzenRN

Norwegian archetypes: www.arketyper.no<http://www.arketyper.no/>
Norwegian governance of archeteypes at Twitter: @arketyper_no




Fra: openEHR-clinical [mailto:[email protected]] På 
vegne av Dileep V S
Sendt: 8. mars 2019 02:09
Til: For openEHR clinical discussions
Emne: Moving towards the use of SNOMED CT in place of local codes for better 
interoperability

Hi,
Many of the archetypes in the CKM use local codes extensively (Diagnosis 
certainty in problem diagnosis, severity category in symptom sign etc.). SNOMED 
CT seems to include reasonable replacements for a large number of these already.

Will it not make sense for reducing the use of local codes in archetypes as 
that will improve interoperability of OpenEHR modeled data beyond the OpenEHR 
ecosystem and also reduce management overhead for the modelling community?

Do we have any specific reasons for not leaving such nodes as text with 
recommendations for use of coding terminology?

regards
[https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0BxQc41y9yqs6bkE5a1JQQVBjZG8]

Dileep V S

Founder

HealtheLife Ventures LLP

m:

+91 9632888113

a:

106, Innovation Centre, IIIT, Electronics City, Bangalore 560100

w:

healthelife.in<http://healthelife.in/>  e: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>


_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

Reply via email to