...
| Date | Requested action | Requester(s) | Response required by: | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 November 2019 | Please see above. |
| Please post your final responses in the Country response table below. Discussion comments can be made as comments. |
...
Country response
| Country | Date | Response | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 20-11-2019 | We asked about the meaning of this content, so I think that was the trigger to consider inactivation. We didn't know how to translate this content because of its ambiguity, so we agree with inactivation. | |||
| Norway | 27-11-2019 | We agree that the concepts are ambiguous, and agree to inactivate | |||
| United Kingdom | 27-11-2019 | Although many of these concepts have exceedingly low annual usage in the UK, a couple of them have significantly higher usage, for example 247267005 Tympanic membrane not visible (finding), which I presume is being recorded as part of a general ear examination, with the meaning that the examiner has been unable to visualize the tympanic membrane for whatever reason. This concept looks to be one of a set relating to degree of visibility of the tympanic membrane, and inactivating this one concept would result in a 'gap' in this set. Likewise 289433006 Fetal movements not observed (finding), which has steady usage in the UK, and which I interpret as meaning 'as part of e.g. an ultrasound examination, no fetal movements have been observed'. For these two, and possibly others, the intention is to convey the fact that an examiner has been unable to visualize a particular structure. If the plan is to inactivate these without replacement, this would cause us mapping problems (as many of these look to originate in CTV3). Inactivation of the 'not seen' descriptions, where other descriptions are active on a concept, would be preferable. I'll email Nicola Ingram as suggested above with comments. | |||
| Member countries without a CMAG rep |
...