Date
2020-02-26
Time:
1800 UTC
1000 PST
Zoom Meeting Details
Topic: SNOMED EAG Conference Call
Time: Feb 26, 2020 10:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada)
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android:
https://snomed.zoom.us/j/3306923098
Attendees
Chair:
AG Members
Invitees:
Observers
Apologies:
Meeting Files:
Meeting minutes:
The call recording is located here.
The edited transcript is located here.
Objectives
- Obtain consensus on agenda items
Discussion items
| Item | Description | Owner | Notes | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Call to order and role call | Start recording! |
| |
| 2 | Conflicts of interest and agenda review | |||
| 3 | Diet findings vs. Diet regimes | A proposal to replace many of the diet finding terms (e.g. high fat diet) with regime/therapy concepts has run into an obstacle with the current usage within the UKTC where these terms originated. In consultation with the UKTC, it has been proposed that we:
Discussion: | ||
| 4 | Replacement of substance with Product in Adverse reactions | A question regarding "Adverse reaction" CAUSATIVE AGENT. The work group has determined that these concepts should have the CAUSATIVE AGENT replaced with "Product" concepts. Is this a substantive change that requires inactivation and replacement? Estimated number of concepts ≈1500-2000 concepts. Discussion: | ||
| 5 | Evaluation procedures vs. Observable entity | Daniel Karlsson | Propose way forward to address the apparent duplication between these two hierarchies:
Discussion: | |
| 6 | Technique hierarchy issues | Daniel Karlsson | Evaluation procedures with an observation technique (e.g. ELISA) are often primitives with a few distinct techniques in the 129264002 | Action (qualifier value) | hierarchy (particularly the Imaging – actions). Observable entity has a technique attribute whereas evaluation procedures have none (with an overlap with some actions). Moving eval procedures to observables would possibly require being explicit about the technique. Discussion: | |
| 7 | Additional description types | Jim Case | As discussed in KL. Need a list of proposed description types to send to tech services for implementation. Guidance on use will need to be developed. Current use cases to consider are:
Issues within our current synonyms was identified in an AMIA paper in 2003: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480077/pdf/amia2003_0949.pdf Discussion: | |
| 8 | ECE Update | Bruce Goldberg |
Discussion: | |
| 9 | Morphology (disorder) concepts | Jim Case | SNOMED CT currently has a large number of disorder concepts that solely represent morphologies. E.g. 416462003 |Wound (disorder)|; 416439000 |Lipogranuloma (disorder)|). While all of these are SD by simply using DIsease + morphology, other than as grouping concepts, are these valuable clinical terms. With the advent of ECL it is a simple query to identify all concepts that fit into these morphologies. What should be the editorial guidance for the creation/maintenance of these terms? Additionally, there are of over 5400 "grouper" terms in SNOMED CT. Many of these are abstract and are useful for navigation, but should not be used in clinical recording. There has been some interest in providing these as an exclusion refset in order to prevent them from being selectable for clinical use. However, some of the terms do have limited clinical usefulness (i.e patient reported clinical findings). It has been suggested that a task for the EAG would be to identify: 1) which terms in the list have clinical usefulness, 2) which terms provide meaningful navigational usefulness and 3) which terms should be inactivated. File link: SNOMED CT Grouper sheet Discussion: | |
| 10 | Next meeting | EAG | April business meeting in London Discussion: Potential agenda items:
|