Karsten Hilbert wrote: >>form. I think this is the promise of SNOMED CT. Doctors will likely >>support such a system if it allows them to easily put MORE information >>in the record than they do today... >> >> >Does *more* information also mean *more information that's >accurate* ? Likely not if data providers are significantly >limited by a restricted set of codes. Reasoning for this in >Slee, Slee, Schmid "The endangered Medical Record". > > > I have to say, I don' think this is a great book, but the main point it makes is clear enough - and everyone needs to understand it - it's the difference between _classification_ and _description_. ICD10 is for classification - I can put a patient in a bucket by assigning the code for "bronchial pneumonia" or whatever. But if I want to *describe* what I observe, I need codes from a descriptive system, not a classification system. SNOMED-CT is more like a descriptive system, although how good it is is anyone's guess (and it's too big - full of precoordination). But eventually, you are most likely to use free text. We foresee free text narrative with embedded codes from descriptive ontologies. You can see simple examples in the openEHR DAta Types reference model, text section (see http://www.openehr.org/Doc_html/Model/Reference/data_types.htm)
- thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
