Snomed / archetype binding rules (was Re: procedure or finding?)

Thanks for the wiki comments - good stuff. I will try and respond later this week. Can I suggest that anyone with an interest in Snomed binding to OpenEHR have a look at the documents by David Markwell at the NHS clinical models site? http://www.ehr.chime.ucl.ac.uk/display/nhsmodels/NHS+CFH+EHR+Co

Snomed / archetype binding rules (was Re: procedure or finding?)

Eric Browne wrote (but it did not get to the list for some reason) I consider this issue of term/terminology binding and SNOMED particularly important and so worth clarifying the concepts and also articulating some principles. I've drafted some preliminary notes - now on the openEHR wiki (thanks S

Snomed / archetype binding rules (was Re: procedure or finding?)

Hi Eric & Sam, and servus to everyone else! This is a reply to Eric's great Wiki post. I added a further section "use cases for terminology referencing in archetypes" and a comment to the page http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/healthmod/Terminology+binding Thilo On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 1:17

procedure or finding?

Hi, I think I thoroughly agree with Sam on most things, but would like to add another example: Urine? Acebutolol; arbitrary concentration(IOC Screen; 0 1) M = 336,43 g/mol Authority: IOC; IFCC/C-LDA; INN NPU01001 U?Acebutolol;arb.c.(IOC Screen; 0

procedure or finding?

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OceanC_small.png Type: image/png Size: 4972 bytes

Snomed / archetype binding rules (was Re: procedure or finding?)

AThomas Beale wrote: > they are working on the syntax, although it seems relatively solid at > the moment. We are also working collectively within the NHS-sponsored > Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on this. David Markwell is currently > authoring an in-depth report on how to bind such exprssions

procedure or finding?

> Remark: > As often in SNOMED the subconcepts of "Dipstick test finding (finding) - > 250412004" are all PRIMITIVE, i.e. they don't a unique relationship that > distinguishes them from their parent. Their definition is relatively weak > indicating only that it 'interprets' a 'lab test' and a 'micr

procedure or finding?

Dear Everyone, as said before Snomed (mostly) models "lab properties" as procedures and most other properties as observables. There might however be a change and a "lab observable" hierarchy (whatever a lab observable is?) is under discussion. Again however, the issue is a bit more tricky as some

Snomed / archetype binding rules (was Re: procedure or finding?)

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

procedure or finding?

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:17:09PM +0200, Thilo Schuler wrote: > This is a bit problematic as there is one subconcept "Urine dipstick test > finding (finding) - 417597005" mentions urine explicitly while the others > don't. Clinically, to my knowledge, in 99,99% urine will be tested with a > dipst

procedure or finding?

Hi Andrew, just want to confirm what you instinctively felt and what Thomas explained. Single pre-coordinated SNOMED procedure codes should only be used with INSTRUCTION and/or ACTIONS. Regarding your problem, this is what I suggest: 1) If there exists a fitting precoordinated finding concept/co

procedure or finding?

I am making some Snomed bindings for some sample archetypes but am having some meta-level problems. An example will probably help - Say I want to snomed code the urinalysis archetype. It lists a large set of potential measurements from a urine dipstick test - blood, glucose, ketones etc. Snomed h

procedure or finding?

Andrew, Finding codes in this case are what should be used - procedure codes are also used in openEHR archetypes - but in orders (i..e INSTRUCTIONs). We need to be extremely careful not to mix them up, in case users/application software does queries based only on Snomed codes and ignores inst