Interesting, the idea that SNOMED-concepts could need some
status-attributes.
When thinking about that, there could be attributes to serve other
purposes too.
Maybe the enormous amount of knowledge collected in SNOMED is not used
as extensively as possible.
There may be much more potential in it. Interesting opportunities, maybe.
I want to thank everyone who took part in this thread to discuss the
initial idea I published yesterday on this list and/or followed up on it.
It really helped me understanding some issues.
Best regards
Bert
On 30-04-16 12:34, Thomas Beale wrote:
Mikael
Ok, I take your point in one sense, but how are we to know what is 'in
use', 'not really in use', 'outdated', ....? More importantly, how
would a national programme signal to its user base which hierarchies
are deprecated, semi-deprecated, needing work - don't use), or
something similar? What happens if two national programmes have
different ideas about using the same hierarchies, e.g. Sweden and
Denmark. How would GP systems in CPH / southern Sweden deal with
different policies on use / non-use of say the Qualifiers hierarchy?
What should an application do if it receives a code string containing
terms from the Qualifiers hierarchy, but the user orgs have been told
to 'avoid the Qualifiers hierarchy'?
The record hierarchy just doesn't belong in SNOMED CT. IAO / OBI maybe.
I would have much less of a problem if the 'use status' of these
hierarchies was clearer, but as far as I can see, it is not - there is
no lifecycle state (other than for properly obsoleted terms)...
- thomas
On 29/04/2016 20:20, Mikael Nyström 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
_______________________________________________
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
