Philippe, I don't understand why you ask about HL7 and SNOMED in the same
question, they have nothing in common and have a complete other purpose,
nor are they depending on each other. I have no opinion about HL7, which
version, which of the many substandards? It is a too large subject for a
simple
On 13/03/2018 21:25, Philippe Ameline wrote:
* So the question is: if we have formal models of the structured
form such as archetypes (maybe even FHIR profiles), why bother
with the grammar strings?
This is a pivotal question, but you may remember that I am used to
putting it t
I got it, when I said standardizing diagnosis you might thought of your
specific implementation / experience. But I was talking about the strategy,
not the implementation.
The strategy can be good and implementations fail miserably, is not a
problem of the strategy :)
As I said, primary coding is
There are 3 ways of "coding" that I know of: 1. primary coding (ask clinicians
and other clinical users to code directly), 2. secondary coding (users record
information, a team of specialists do the coding later), 3. assisted coding
(software helps users to code, and there are many ways of doin
> * So the question is: if we have formal models of the structured
> form such as archetypes (maybe even FHIR profiles), why bother
> with the grammar strings?
>
>
This is a pivotal question, but you may remember that I am used to
putting it the other way around: if you can tell somethi
There are many implementation solutions for primary, assisted and secondary
coding.
In assisted coding what you mention is one way.
The best solution IMO that I saw implemented is free text search, matching
to an interface terminology that internally maps to SNOMED. The interface
terminology is c
>>> just imagine standardizing every diagnosis
>> That typically leads to either bad statistics or disimproved care.
> Can I ask why?
It of course depends on the suitability of the standardization process (as in
the applicability of a coding system to the domain - medically and in purpose).
It is
Le 13/03/2018 à 18:01, Bert Verhees a écrit :
> On 13-03-18 17:45, Philippe Ameline wrote:
>> in my own terms, it means that it is not the proper component for
>> modern applications.
>
> Wasn't it Voltaire who said that the best is the enemy of the good?
Bert, I get your point and I can perfectl
I would put it the other way around: it can only be done with
structured, controlled subsets, that retain hierarchy from the original
terminology, remove unneeded codes, and do a few other tricks (adding
non-coding 'group' concepts to help guide the user). This has to be done
using smart tree c
It is a very very very bad practice to ask clinicians to code!
Standardizing diagnosis is a very different thing than asking clinicians to
code, the first is the strategy, the second is one possible, and bad,
implementation.
There are 3 ways of "coding" that I know of: 1. primary coding (ask
clin
I assume the reason is that asking clinicians to do coding without any help
provides great variability and leads to coding errors. What Thomas said
about presenting clinicians with addecuated subsets is key to avoid that.
There are also mechanisms to check coding quality/errors, but usually need
hi
On 13/03/2018 16:45, Philippe Ameline wrote:
Thomas,
Since, in that domain (terminologies, classification, ontologies...),
it is not that easy to understand someone else's explanation without a
sketching tool available, do you think I betray your thoughts if I sum
it up as "Snomed should no
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Karsten Hilbert
wrote:
> > just imagine standardizing every diagnosis
>
> That typically leads to either bad statistics or disimproved care.
>
Can I ask why?
>
> Karsten
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> open
" but in some cases, *it is missing concepts*"
Shouldn't we contribute?
Is the same as openEHR, there are missing archetypes and we need the
community, users, clinical modelers and engineers to contribute.
LOINC also misses concepts, and when I asked them how can I contribute,
they sent me the
> just imagine standardizing every diagnosis
That typically leads to either bad statistics or disimproved care.
Karsten
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_l
On 13-03-18 17:45, Philippe Ameline wrote:
in my own terms, it means that it is not the proper component for
modern applications.
Wasn't it Voltaire who said that the best is the enemy of the good?
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-techni
Thomas,
Since, in that domain (terminologies, classification, ontologies...), it
is not that easy to understand someone else's explanation without a
sketching tool available, do you think I betray your thoughts if I sum
it up as "Snomed should not be licensed as a "one size fits all" package
but s
The killer move would be to do something I advocated for years
unsuccessfully: *separate SNOMED technology from content *and allow them
to be independently licensable and used. Here, technology means
representation (RF2 for example), open source programming libraries for
working with ref-sets
Hi,
IMO having s national terminology server like we have in Uruguay, is a
first step of delivering. jus imagine standardizing every diagnosis, every
procedure and every drug around the country? I can only see benefits for
clinical environments and public health, they will have data to actually
se
Le 13/03/2018 à 12:32, GEORGE, John (NHS DIGITAL) a écrit :
>
>
> I am get the impression that SNOMED CT is hard to implement, and
> therefore wondered if we are at some kind of tipping point, like where
> HL7v3 was a few years ago, and some bright spark came along, and now
> we have FHIR that i
>
>
>
> I am get the impression that SNOMED CT is hard to implement, and therefore
> wondered if we are at some kind of tipping point, like where HL7v3 was a
> few years ago, and some bright spark came along, and now we have FHIR that
> is gaining great traction in the health community due to the e
On 13/03/2018 10:56, Philippe Ameline wrote:
Grahame,
What you state is plainly valid, and the "it exists" argument is not
to be considered lightly.
However, as an engineer and a developer, I always try to measure the
payload of a component when I consider using it. Where does it fit in
t
Hi Phillipe and Graham,
This may help your discussion:
https://www.snomedinaction.org
Unfortunately, it only gives a high level view of where SNOMED CT is used, for
example, if you look at the map, it mentions, “Leeds Teaching Hospitals decided
to embrace SNOMED CT in their Emergency Departmen
Grahame,
What you state is plainly valid, and the "it exists" argument is not to
be considered lightly.
However, as an engineer and a developer, I always try to measure the
payload of a component when I consider using it. Where does it fit in
the "pair of wings" to "dead horse" range?
IMHO, HL7 a
hi Philippe
No one who's actually tried to use Snomed CT could think that in it's
current form it's the answer to everything.
But anyone who's tried to work on real terminologies must also be aware of
just how much work is involved in these things.
So there's very much a glass half full/empty thi
Hi contributors on this,
I am sorry not contributing so much, it is not my piece of cake to work
on defining standards, I like better using them.
So I like to express that I am very grateful for the work which is being
done in this context and the way it is being done.
I think that it will b
Interesting times indeed :-)
Le 12/03/2018 à 18:06, Birger Haarbrandt a écrit :
> Please never underestimate the Germans...
>
> Am 12.03.2018 um 14:54 schrieb Mikael Nyström:
>> Will France as usual be the last country that adopt something that originate
>> from Great Britain? :-)
>>
>> Reg
Pablo, I wish you sincerely all the best.
IMHO, the question is not really to enroll but to deliver... and
considering the tremendous amount of money that was invested in HL7 and
Snomed (both to elaborate and try to implement) and the actual societal
return, there is such a discrepancy that the hy
28 matches
Mail list logo