Page History

•  Request AG to address critical reporting agenda items in advance of other items.

•  Approve minutes from 06/27/2016
  
  

Decision from Copenhagen 2015, that the prescribing use case is not going to be supported. Thus the need for universal restrictions in the DL is not needed at this time.

Questions regarding the names of drug products that contain SOME substances if we disallow the use of universal restrictions:

-          Which concepts have this potential problem?

-          How to construct the FSN to make it unambiguous?

-          If we change the FSN, is it a technical correction or retire and replace? 

Policy on addition of assessment tool responses to the International edition.

IHTSDO currently accepts "names" of assessment instruments and staging scales; however, there is nothing in the editorial guide that specifically addresses the responses to assessment instrument questions. As many of these are extremely context dependent, being tied specifically to the particular instrument, what should be the policy of IHTSDO to requests to add assessment instrument responses to the International release.

Example: Requests to add responses to Tinetti balance assessment tool

The EAG has been asked to do a self evaluation after the first two years of operarion. We need to answer the following questions given that the role of the EAG is advisory.

Advisory group self-evaluation

1. Are the responsibilities of EAG members clear? Group agrees that the responsibilities are clear.
   
   
2. Are the topics that have been discussed relevant to the expectations of the members? Yes
3. Is the operation of the committee satisfactory? Satisfactory, but would like to meet more frequently. Recognize the challenge of getting the group together. The main issue is with the availability of the chair. Can the members be more flexible in scheduling meetings? Will address specifically in Wellington. Group feels there are many more issues that they could help to address. GRE stated the calls are only one form of interaction. May require more face-to-face meetings that are 2 days to address a larger number of issues. The visibility of editorial changes that are being made without input from the EAG needs to be addressed; especially when it involves large scale changes. A process to make this happen needs to be developed.
4. Does the group feel that it has made substantial progress over the first two years? We have made progress and would like to be able to make more int he future with more frequent meetings/calls/discussions.
5. Should the EAG be continued for the next year? Definite yes from the AG members.

Develop a set of 1-2 primary goals for the EAG for next quarter (specifically Wellington meeting) and the next year. What are the most important topics the group should attempt to address in the coming year?

Suggestions: Development of clear editorial approach and guidance around disorders, findings, observations and situations. When to use which? The current situation makes it difficult to determine which concept to use in different circumstances. How do we align the current SNOMED structure with the other initiatives that want to use SNOMED such as CIMI, FHIR? Begin discussion on approach (revitalize Condition hierarchy discussion).

How SNOMED CT can support the recording of clinical genomics data? Scope? Consistent with the approach used for other conditions. Recognize the need for use cases to support this effort.

How can SNOMED be structured to meet the different high level use cases that differ substantially in their approaches to using structured terminology? Single-code use vs. structured data (e.g. CIMI). This ties into the initial discussion of modularization of SNOMED CT.

•   Q4 2016 goals
•  2017 high level goals

A final proposal to resolve issues around the requirement for matching descriptions for FSN:

•   Gain consensus on final proposal

Disjunctive components

Final agreement

Review of disjunctive representations:

1. Use of "+": Combined components, being added as primitive combined concepts as a short term resolution.
2. Use of "&": Usually used as part of a panel, out of scope for the RII/IHTSDO agreement
3. Use of "&/or": Under review by RII as potentially erroneous. Out of scope for addition to SNOMED CT.

Impact of this is that a number of LOINC terms become ineligible for addition to SNOMED CT.

•   Gain consensus on final proposal

Space Actions

We are meeting for a full day in New Zealand. Need substantive topics to move forward.