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/
