...
Date | Requested action | Requester(s) | Response required by: | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 March 2020 | Input on additional description types |
| Please post your final responses in the Country response table below. Discussion comments can be made as comments below. |
...
| Country | Date | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 2020-03-23 | We already have language reference sets, which is a powerful tool to specify description use contexts such as (potentially) patient friendly/common language terms, speciality terms. Linguistic variants (abbreviations, singular/plural forms, some derivations) would still be considered acceptable synonyms and this We are still in the process of finding out what constitutes over use of language reference sets. "Search terms" we assume are generally not (true enough) synonyms and thus might require a new description type OR a new acceptability value and a slight(?) re-interpretation of what 900000000000013009 | Synonym (core metadata concept) | means. |
| Australia | 2020-03-24 | Very similar approach to Sweden. Abbreviations are already supported and editorial guidance exists. I could see a "patient friendly" synonym type being viable for when the same synonym will apply to a large number of specific concepts. And patient doesn't "need" to know that that much detail. "Patient-friendly" terms are inherently "lossy" - reduced detail. I'm not sure about the value of truncation? We create a lot of synonyms, specifically aimed at a consistent search experience. As an aside, we've been informed by a clinician that we're in a (quote) "post mellitus" world, and "Diabetes" is an appropriate/preferrable synonym to "Diabetes mellitus". We're in looking into how we'll action this. |
| Member countries without a CMAG rep |
...