Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: Templates for application form development

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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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? :-) >> >>

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

> > > > 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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Aw: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

> 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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Aw: Re: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

>>> 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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

> * 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

Aw: Re: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

 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

Re: Re: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

" 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

Re: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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 > > ___ >

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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