Summary
SNOMED International is seeking input on how navigational concepts e.g. 4730003 |Mosquito-borne infectious disease (navigational concept)| are being used.
Actions:
Date | Requested action | Requester(s) | Response required by: | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
4 December 2019 | Provision of input on the use of navigational concepts |
| Please post your final responses in the Country response table below. Discussion comments can be made as comments. |
Relevant documents
Actions
- Type your task here, using "@" to assign to a user and "//" to select a due date
Links
Country response
Country | Date | Response |
---|---|---|
Norway | 04.12.2019 | It is to early to say how vendor might use these concepts. It is not unthinkable that they could be used sensibly, but my guess is that it will vary very much from implementation to implementation. |
Australia | 16.12.2019 | I've always struggled with the navigational concepts, and how they should be used... There's a lot of probably"useful" concepts in there, but implementing them in a meaningful way seems to be to complex and difficult such that it becomes difficult. I'm not aware of anyone using them in AU, and I expect there is nobody. I get the impression they are clinically relevant concepts, but too difficult to model/outside model, so they've been relegated to the navigational hierarchy. Very similar concepts in the proper hierarchy now... For example, Arbovirus infection (disorder). This could be a supertype of "Mosquito-borne infectious disease". There's not much difference between these two concepts. CSIRO's shrimp browser creates it's own 'navigational type' things, to just group stuff (example) - I think they autogenerate when a concept has too many subtypes. Our internal tool (Lingo), also uses a few arbitrary "concepts" so that tree view/taxonomy doesn't crash. But these are build into the tool. (0-1, A-E, F-J etc...) |
Member countries without a CMAG rep |
CMAG response
Date | CMAG Response | Next steps |
---|---|---|
Final outcome:
Date: