SNOMED CT Editorial Advisory Group

Page tree

Versions Compared

Old Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Paul Amos

Saved on

compared with

New Version 4

changes.mady.by.user Paul Amos

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Title


Narrative description

(Describe the inactivation scenario in a few lines)

From time to time editorial policy may change, either to support changes in modelling practice, to update our approach to what is considered to be within scope for the international edition of SNOMED CT or bring consistency to existing content. Sometimes when this is done the meaning of an FSN or the implied meaning of a logical definition may change the meaning of an existing SNOMED CT concept.

When a change of meaning occurs the legacy concept should be inactivated and where appropriate a replacement concept be created if an equivalent concept does not already exist.

Details

(Provide specifics about the scenario to support comparison to other scenarios)

What is being inactivated (concept/description/any component)?The concept which is considered to be non-conformant to editorial policy
What is the reason for inactivation (description)?Either the FSN or the logical definition does not conform to current editorial policy
Which inactivation value should be used?...The concept is non-conformant to editorial policy
Which historical association reference set should be used?...Currently no association required

Known issues

(Describe any issues that may occur for this scenario and which may complicate interpretation of the inactivation)

  1. It is currently unclear which elements of a "change" to editorial policy might result in the need to inactivate a concept
  2. There is currently no facility to record which editorial policy resulted in a requirement to inactivate the concept
  3. It is not possible to allocate an historical association and so management of the inactivation at a local level is at best difficult
  4. It is currently not clear whether non-conformance to editorial policy applies to the FSN alone or might include the logical definition...

Examples

Simple Example


Complex Example
Erroneous Example

Impact

(Describe how specific stakeholders are affected by the inactivation)

  •  Authors
  1. Need to be clear about the distinction between editorial policy regarding ambiguous concepts e.g. AND/OR and those that relate to other aspects of non-conformance to editorial policy.
  •  Release Management Team

  •  Developers

  •  End Users

Impact depends upon:

  1. If the inactivated component replacement is straightforwardly synonymous then there is a minimal effect (in which case there is a designated replacement). This accounts for vast majority of cases.
  2. If the inactivation results in a new component which the end user considers does not have the same meaning, then the end user must determine a replacement.

Potential improvement

(Provide an indication of whether the current inactivation mechanism for this scenario is sufficient, or provide your ideas or thoughts on potential improvements)

  1. Support a drop down list of potential non-conformance to editorial policy reasons for inactivation:
    1. Change in editorial policy for drugs/substances- add text string to state Ed Guide section or General Content (GC) or EDITPANEL Ticket
    2. Change in editorial policy for clinical findings - add text string to state Ed Guide section or General Content (GC) or EDITPANEL Ticket
    3. Non-conformance to current editorial guide - add text string to state Ed Guide section
  2. Support "REPLACED_BY" and "POSSIBLY_EQUIVALENT_TO" associations
  3. Explicitly include changes in editorial policy that affect the logical definition of a concept

Supporting resources

(Provide links to any resources relevant for this scenario)

<url><comment>

...