Hi Mikael, I really did not intend my remarks about the 'missing' content in SNOMED-CT to be seen as a complaint, or criticism. I fully understand that this, by definition, is work in progress and there is a perfectly good change request mechanism to have new terms added.
I was only responding to Bert's suggestion that most of the needed terms were already there, particularly for 'names' of nodes. Actually I had thought that 'record artefacts' might be what we use in the future to identify archetypes. I agree with you about 'situation with explicit context' but there was a time not so long ago in the UK when this was seen as a key part of fully defining clinical content as part of the Logical Record Architecture project. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: [email protected] twitter: @ianmcnicoll Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation [email protected] Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 29 April 2016 at 21:20, Mikael Nyström <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > > > Most of the concepts in the situation hierarchy had probably been added > because they have been useful in EHR systems without advanced information > models and without the possibility to post-coordinate and they are probably > still in SNOMED CT because some of these EHR systems are still in use. > However, if you have the possibility to use better EHR systems there are no > need to use these concepts. I therefore doesn’t see any real problem with > them. > > > > The concepts in the qualifier value hierarchy are no longer in use to the > same extent as they were when SNOMED CT was new 2002 and will probably be > cleaned up in the future. > > > > I agree that the Record artefact hierarchy could be more useful, but I > guess that this hierarchy to a quite large extent needs to be filled with > content on the national level, because a quite large part of the > administrative concepts are country dependant. > > > > However, I believe these kinds of complains about the content in SNOMED CT > are less useful. It is more like complains about openEHR because there are > some outdated or draft archetypes of lesser usefulness in the CKM. This > kind of content is always possible to ignore to use. Much more useful > complains would be complains about lack of content or incorrect modelled > content in areas that are central for the healthcare system. These kinds of > complains can improve the content and make SNOMED CT easier and better to > use. Please submit them in the SNOMED CT International Request Submission > (SIRS) System at the address https://sirs.nlm.nih.gov/ . > > > > Regards > > Mikael > > > > > > *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Beale > *Sent:* den 29 april 2016 19:22 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: SNOMED > > > > > > Hi Mikael, > > right... but the usual idea is that these codes would be used in a > post-coordinated expression. I think most of those expressions are > problematic as well. > > Aside: quite what 'Abuse counselling for non-offending parent (situation)' > is doing there is another question. Or 'Both parents misuse drugs > (situation)'... > > But the problem is more widespread than Situation with explicit context. > > The 'Qualifier value' hierarchy is also problematic, particularly 'Context > values', and the 'Temporal context' sub hierarchy. Having all this under > 'Qualifiers' is an information recording view of things, not an ontological > view. Also terms like 'Current - time specified' don't really make sense. > > 'Descriptors' - a huge bag of ontologically different things lumped > together... none of these would be usefully computable as far as I can see, > since they are not connected to meaningful parents. > > Then we have 'Record artifact', also informational in nature, and > specifying an ad hoc set of headings. I can't see what use this is. > > > - thomas > > On 29/04/2016 16:37, Mikael Nyström wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I can just add that those entities Tom mentions below as > > > > “The waters are muddied further by the attempts to represent > informational, timing and context-related entities in SNOMED CT.” > > > > Are the clearly separated sub-hierarchy called “Situation with explicit > context” ( > http://browser.ihtsdotools.org/?perspective=full&conceptId1=243796009&edition=en-edition&release=v20160131&server=http://browser.ihtsdotools.org/api/snomed&langRefset=900000000000509007) > and that sub-hierarch contains only 1 % of the concepts in SNOMED CT. It is > therefore no problem to use SNOMED CT without these concepts for those who > want to do it. > > > > Regards > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
