Date
2020-04-29
Time:
1800 - 1930 UTC
1100 - 1230 PDT
Zoom Meeting Details
Topic: SNOMED Editorial Advisory Group Conference Call
Time: Apr 29, 2020 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada)
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android:
https://snomed.zoom.us/j/96945174848?pwd=WDJlVEFYTmk1U3RkQmFGV1JONTRKZz09
Password: 030324
Meeting ID: 969 4517 4848
Password: 030324
International numbers available: https://snomed.zoom.us/u/aNKqXbcBe
Or Skype for Business (Lync):
https://snomed.zoom.us/skype/96945174848
Attendees
Chair:
AG Members
Invitees:
Observers:
Apologies:
Meeting Files:
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 | No conflicts noted | ||
| 3 | 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: Implemented and populated in the International release:
Implemented but NOT populated in the International release (i.e., for use in extensions)
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: GRE: Not necessary to distinguish hypernyms and near synonyms. Consider a separate extension for "patient-friendly" terms. Need a separate language refset. How to identify near synonyms? GRE: Had done some work 10 years ago. May be useful to get an idea of scope. Want to avoid contaminating the terminology with non-synonymous descriptions. Do these need another description type or just a mechanism to segregate the descriptions from the main branch? Adding to another language refset would require modifications of the AP UI. There is a risk in adding near synonyms if those descriptions are used in the EHR UI. Suggestion that we need to distinguish the near synonymy, e.g. broader than or narrower than. Narrower than are not synonymous at all as they are specializations of the parent. Use the definition from ISO 25964-1:2011 as a guidance for defining near synonymy. Discussion continued to next call without resolution NEW Summary of comments from CMAG: In general, most extensions are already using a mechanism to manage patient-friendly terms within their extension and do not have an immediate need for a specific description type to be created. They did not address the issue of the value of near-synonymy and did not specify any other description types that might be useful. They also did not feel it was necessary to specifically call out abbreviations or truncations. Proposal from Head of Terminology: Add a single new description type representing "near synonymy" (name to be decided). Restrict its use to "broader than" concepts where the specificity is implied in clinical settings, or non-semantically equivalent but related terms, such as the outcome of a process. |
|
| 4 | Scale types vs. HAS INTERPRETATION in modeling Findings using Observable entities | Daniel Karlsson | Does the HAS INTERPRETATION range need to match the SCALE of the Observable used as a value for INTERPRETS? https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/143fQMaHsV9NTwK0ZdEpNLE2fsgefU6-vKANl7hT7ptY/edit?usp=sharing | |
| 5 | ECE Update | Bruce Goldberg | Injury model: Proposal to add morphologies that are considered injuries by the WHO under Damage, to be consistent with ICD. Procedure complications:
| |
| 6 | 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: | |
| 7 | Next meeting | EAG | Doodle poll to be sent out for meeting in May Discussion: Potential agenda items:
|