Owner
2684 View
6 Comment
In discussion
Comments enabled
In the category:
Undefined
Hi,
We would like to know if "anatomical site" is an accepted property?
LOINC manual defines this property as following:
"To accommodate the special dimensions of clinical observations we have introduced new options for the kind of Property. The new kinds of Property are what you might expect from the new kinds of dimensions being measured (e.g., resistance, voltage, work per beat):
...
Anat: Anatomic is a special case of Prid that identifies anatomic sites."
LOINC_NUM | LONG_COMMON_NAME | COMPONENT | PROPERTY | TIME_ASPCT | SYSTEM | SCALE_TYP |
33725-3 | Tumor site | Tumor site | Anat | Pt | Specimen | Nom |
33733-7 | Sites of distant metastasis | Sites of distant metastasis | Anat | Pt | Specimen | Nar |
84880-4 | Position of rectal tumor in relation to anterior peritoneal reflection [Anatomy] in Tumor | Position of rectal tumor in relation to anterior peritoneal reflection | Anat | Pt | Tumor | Nom |
84897-8 | Dominant nodule quadrant [Anatomy] in Prostate tumor | Dominant nodule quadrant | Anat | Pt | Prostate tumor | Nom |
84898-6 | Dominant nodule plane [Anatomy] in Prostate tumor | Dominant nodule plane | Anat | Pt | Prostate tumor | Nom |
84900-0 | Other nodule quadrant [Anatomy] in Prostate tumor | Other nodule quadrant | Anat | Pt | Prostate tumor | Nom |
84901-8 | Other nodule plane [Anatomy] in Prostate tumor | Other nodule plane | Anat | Pt | Prostate tumor | Nom |
84902-6 | Extraprostatic extension site [Anatomy] of Prostate tumor | Extraprostatic extension site | Anat | Pt | Prostate tumor | Nom |
Thanks,
Farzaneh
Contributors (4)
-
Number of accepted comment 0Number of comment 1
-
Number of accepted comment 0Number of comment 3
-
Number of accepted comment 0Number of comment 1
-
Number of accepted comment 0Number of comment 1
6 Comments
Farzaneh Ashrafi
Summary of discussions in OIMP call, August 2017 (To be continued in the next OIMP call):
The question is if we need to create "anatomical site" as a property or a more generic concept such as "location" or "site" (similar to procedure site) should be considered?
Farzaneh Ashrafi
CC: Suzanne Santamaria Daniel Karlsson
Based on the discussion in 2017-09-18 - OBSERVABLE Meeting and associated slide deck, we will create the following properties:
| Anatomical location |
| Geographical location |
Susan Matney
I'm confused by the "geographical location" property. LOINC does not have a blood pressure taken at home term. It seems odd to add a geographical location to an observation because they are different based on context of care. We would not create a B/P taken in the emergency room or the grocery store which aligns with "at home".
James R. Campbell
Susan
I cannot comment on ‘geographical location’ as our use case for deployment in anatomical pathology were observables such as ‘tumor site’ and ‘anatomical specimens included in surgical case’. They are meant to specify the valueset of answers as anatomical references like ‘32713005|Cecum(body structure)|’. By extension however, I would assume that a property of ‘geographical location’ is not meant to specify context, but rather valuesets. Such an observable might be ‘Country of origin (emigration)’ or ‘What foreign countries did you visit within the past six weeks?’ with valueset including: 223693003|Guatemala(geographic location)|.
Jim
Daniel Karlsson
Just to add slightly to what Jim said, the purpose is not to define different BPs, but to be able to more clearly define other observables about the BP measurement, e.g. "what was the location of BP measurement" and then to be able to separate the two cases where one value set includes "upper left arm" and the other value set includes "home". As Jim notes, there are other examples.
This proposal is for two new property concepts and as 1 observable can have only 1 property these could not be used to define "home BP". If anyone would be interested in modeling "home BP" (or "grocery store BP"
) that would be modeled using the "precondition" attribute.
Farzaneh Ashrafi
Discussed this item again on October 2. No change was suggested to resolution made on September 18.