Page tree


Summary

See attached briefing note.


Relevant documents

  File Modified
Microsoft Word Document Briefing note_Implantation procedures 20181203_MHA.docx 2018-Dec-04 by Cathy Richardson



Actions: 

DateRequested actionRequester(s)Response required by:Comments
11 December 2018Review briefing note and respond
  • Camilla Wiberg Danielsen Please review the briefing note regarding Implantation Procedures (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
  • Daniel Karlsson Please review the briefing note regarding Implantation Procedures (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
  • Sheree Hemingway Please review the briefing note regarding Implantation Procedures (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
  • Elze de Groot - already completed.
  • Karina Revirol Please review the briefing note regarding Implantation Procedures (on this page) and provide a response by    Thank you. 
  • Linda Parisien Please review the briefing note regarding Implantation Procedures (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
  • Matt Cordell - already completed.
  • Olivier Bodenreider Please review the briefing note regarding Implantation Procedures (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
  • Jostein Ven Please review the briefing note regarding Implantation Procedures (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
  • Theresa Barry Please review the briefing note regarding Implantation Procedures (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
Please post your final responses in the Country response table below. Discussion comments can be made as comments.
  •  

2018-12-11 - CMAG Meeting

Country response 

CountryDateResponse

Australia


6/12/2018

I'm OK with the proposal. As described in the document, without details of "what is being implanted" these concepts are of limited clinical use. As an aside, It also seems like modelling distinction should be made recognising "insertions into natural cavities" (e.g. << 120133003 |External ear implantation| ) vs other sites... Maybe this is the distinction between "insertion" vs "implant" ? Some definitions around these ( << 129325002 |Introduction - action| ) "actions" will help both authors and translations.

The Netherlands10/12/2018

I'm happy to see this branch will be reviewed and updated. I only miss the review of FSN's with 'introduction' in it, because these are also grouper concepts which are not always very well defined. I agree with definitions around these terms, because insertion is (as non-English country) not very clear in all contexts. For example "insertion of a substance into something', is that the same as 'introduction of a substance into something'? In Dutch it would be the same after translation. You can insert or introduce a substance by means of a injection for example. Sometimes insertion and introduction are synonym, for example in catheterization. So definition of insertion and implantation in different contexts would be very helpful!

Sweden2018-12-14 (ISO 8601 fgs)

Of the 3211 concepts <<71861002 |Implantation (procedure)| 2220 have an indirect procedure site, <<71861002 |Implantation (procedure)|:  405814001 |Procedure site - Indirect (attribute)| = * ,1350 have an indirect but no direct procedure site, <<71861002 |Implantation (procedure)|:  [1..*] 405814001 |Procedure site - Indirect (attribute)| = *, [0..0] 405813007 | Procedure site - Direct (attribute) | = * , and 115 have precisely the generic procedure site attribute, <<71861002 |Implantation (procedure)|:  [1..*] 363704007 | Procedure site (attribute) |=*. Looking at a sample of the implantations on the list, they use the indirect site indicating that there is a gap between the formal definition and the FSN. BTW "implantation" is a synonym of "insertion - action".

So, we support the overhaul of this area. We do not know of use of these concepts in Sweden. However, we currently do use implantation findings for alert information.

Norway2018-12-21At this point in time, we see no direct use case for most of these unspecified concepts. We welcome the review and a clarification of concept of implantation, insertion and introduction. At least one of the concepts in the list seem to be of a different kind: "Piggyback lens implantation (procedure)". There may be other useful concepts in the branch, so care must be taken not to deactivate useful concepts.
Argentina2019-01-07It´s ok for Argentina.
Canada2019-01-08We are in agreement with the proposal. It seems that this content is not used in Canada.
United Kingdom2019-01-16With the exception of 66660002 | Tooth implantation (procedure), which has had steady low-level usage (low hundreds), the listed concepts are not used in the UK, and we therefore support the review of these concepts.
Denmark2019-01-25Content is presently not in use in Denmark. Any QA is always welcome.


CMAG response

DateCMAG ResponseNext steps










Final outcome: 

Date: 


  • No labels

6 Comments

  1. I agree with the Elze's comment. Perhaps it would be really good to use non-english translation(s) to find concepts within a specific subhierarchy that translate the same.
    Subheirarchies that form an attribute range, e.g.  << 129264002 |Action (qualifier value)| The variety in vocabulary might make sense in free text, but is probably responsible for a lot of the inconsistency and ambiguity. As I mentioned the the subtle distinctions that might exist, may relate to the "what is being actioned where". Look at  298116000 |Application of substance (qualifier value)| .

  2. I support the review of this review, currently we do not have any use cases that will be impacted because of this.

  3. How do I edit the Country-specific table?

  4. When you are locked in you press Edit at the top of the page. /Camilla

  5. Thanks, Camilla!