Ad hoc negation, in German ;)
But that's not really the fault of ICD10; it's a misuse of it. One might
argue that it occurs because ICD10 doesn't provide a proper way of
representing exclusions, only positive identifications. And that's an
old, long debate...
- thomas
On 16/03/2018 07:41, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:56:07PM +0000, Mikael Nyström wrote:
Yes, of cause it is! My main point was that a statistical
classification is a simpler product than a clinical ontology
and it is therefore also easier to implement a statistical
classification than a clinical ontology.
And it is also dangerous to your health if used for clinical
care (never mind that that's mandatory in Germany):
If I rule out AIDS in a patient I can - in Germany - attach
to the EHR the relevant ICD-10 appended with an "A" for
"Ausschluß" (as in "ruled out"). When said patient travels to
the United States many people will understandably ignore the
"A" (as it has no meaning to them and it does not belong to
the core definition of ICD-10), et voila, we've got a
manufactured HIV infection.
Even more dangerous situations could be construed.
Karsten
--
Thomas Beale
Principal, Ars Semantica <http://www.arssemantica.com>
Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain Healthcare
<https://intermountainhealthcare.org/>
Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation
<http://www.openehr.org>
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
<http://www.bcs.org/category/6044>
Health IT blog <http://wolandscat.net/> | Culture blog
<http://wolandsothercat.net/>
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
