Content Managers Advisory Group

Page tree

Versions Compared

Old Version 4

changes.mady.by.user Camilla Wiberg Danielsen

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Katrien Scheerlinck

Saved on

Key

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

...

DateRequested actionRequester(s)Response required by:Comments
30 Jan 2020Feedback on spinal dislocation/ subluxation with cord lesion replacement requirements

Jim Case Cathy Richardson

  •  Camilla Wiberg Danielsen  Please provide feedback on the need for replacement content- see summary.
  •  Daniel Karlsson  Please provide feedback on the need for replacement content- see summary.
  •  Sheree Hemingway  Please provide feedback on the need for replacement content- see summary.
  •  Elze de Groot  Please provide feedback on the need for replacement content- see summary.
  •  Linda Parisien  Please provide feedback on the need for replacement content- see summary.
  •  Matt Cordell  Please provide feedback on the need for replacement content- see summary.
  •  Olivier Bodenreider  Please provide feedback on the need for replacement content- see summary.
  •  Jostein Ven  Please provide feedback on the need for replacement content- see summary.
  •  Theresa Barry  Please provide feedback on the need for replacement content- see summary.
  •  Katrien Scheerlinck  Please provide feedback on the need for replacement content- see summary.
Please post your final responses in the Country response table below. Discussion comments can be made as comments.


Links

Country response 

CountryDateResponse
Denmark 20200130Concepts are not in use in Denmark, so no objections to clean up.
            
The Netherlands 20200130The above mentioned concepts are not used in our diagnoses list. We do have some concepts that are subtypes like 'Spinal dislocation with complete cervical cord lesion (disorder)'. But I rather remodel them to be fully defined. So I totally agree with cleaning up that area!
 US 20200130No evidence of use of these codes in any value sets from VSAC. Interestingly, no evidence of use in relevant value sets, such as "Spinal Cord Injury", where many other codes are used.
 Norway20200204 

We agree that these concepts should be inactivated. However, replacement concepts are needed. We propose not to precoordinate dislocation/subluxation concepts with the actual injury concepts. The word "lesion" seems to be very broad in meaning in English so in any case one could imagine the need to document more detailed what the actual injury is. Such concepts may exist already in SNOMED CT. For the dislocation/subluxation concepts we propose detailed concepts on the level of Cn-Tn-Ln, perhaps grouped into cervical, thoracic, lumbar.. 90584004 |Spinal cord injury (disorder)|with children will document any spinal cord injury when needed.

 
 Australia 20200205 We're not aware of any usage (though don't have huge visibility). However, the few stakeholders I got feedback from agreed the "lesion" referred to in these concepts would (by rational logic) be in the same location as the dislocation, ie the dislocation caused the lesion. Could also indicate the severity of the dislocation or potential likely hood of certain consequences (e.g. ~90% of dislocations above T10 result in complete paraplegia and ~60% below T10 result in complete paraplegia). I agree with the comment above about the broad meaning of "lesion". 19130008 | Traumatic abnormality (morphologic abnormality) | is would be a better morphology. Given the assumptions I've made.. the concepts probably are ambiguous.
 Belgium 20200221 We're not aware of the use of these concepts in Belgium at this moment. We agree with cleaning them up
   
   
   
Member countries without a CMAG rep  

 

CMAG response

DateCMAG ResponseNext steps
   
   
   

...