On Thursday 03 July 2003 17:52, Pat wrote:
> Ummmm, Is this a good thing?

It is one of the things I have criticised the UK gov/Dept of 
health/NHS for _not_ doing for the last 10 years, presenting my 
view that it is a condition for success of a terminology/coding 
system/clinical terms thesaurus.

(take that as "on the whole, yes")

>  Will there be any restrictions on the license? 
/me asks "do we get it in the UK as well, not least given that 
Read/CTT has been merged with SNOMED to form the current set"?


>  Also, what happens at the end of 5 years? Will all of those
> using Snomed now have to license the product from Snomed
> International?

I expect people will look around to see what to do next.  
Planning more than a few years ahead in government-related 
health activities is futile.

Note that it is essential (IMHO) to import the rubric - the text 
phrase - from any coding dictionary you use into the human 
viewed narrative notes, not just import the code and rely upon 
being able to link to the same dictionary table for the 
remaining lifetime of the patient, their surviving family 
dependants, their lawyers and your estate.
(Thus if the rubric of a code where to change later on, the code 
and rubric you saw and selected would continue to be what was 
seen in the notes).

Such a thesaurus is highly desirable, the classification is 
useful, and the attached coding system is essential in any 
medical record and administration system for general use and 
cooperation with other such systems in a modern state.

it is also important to appreciate the problems that come with 
it, such as spurious crispness and the practical difficulty of 
getting new codes written and distributed in timely fashion when 
regulatory or clinical fashion changes.  


-- 
From the Linux desktops of Dr Adrian Midgley 
http://www.defoam.net/             

Reply via email to