Page tree

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 15 Next »


Summary

Please see attached briefing note.

Relevant documents

No files shared here yet.

Actions: 

DateRequested actionRequester(s)Response required by:Comments
8 December 2021Feedback on plan to inactivate procedure concepts which specify the intent
Please post your final responses in the Country response table below. Discussion comments can be made as comments.

Country response 

CountryDateResponse
Denmark20211208DK agrees to the suggestion in the briefing note about inactivation of procedures stating intent as diagnostic or therapeutic and using agnostic procedures instead.
New Zealand20211214NZ is in agreement with the proposal to inactivate procedures stating intent (diagnostic/therapeutic).
Netherlands20211221

Before we can agree with this proposal we need more information as we use diagnostic/therpeutic in our extension. We miss (or can't understand) information from this proposal. These are our questions:

  • "Unless there is a clinical reason and the procedure itself changes depending on whether it is diagnostic or therapeutic then the agnostic procedure would be sufficient" → From this statement we understand that the diagnostic endoscopy isn't necessary anymore. Endoscopy is diagnostic (therpautic would be endoscopic procedure with the therapeutic part of the procedure), but 363071007 |diagnostic endoscopy (procedure)| still exists (endoscopy intents was an earlier proposal). Do we understand it correctly that this will be inactivated, because '423827005 |endoscopy (procedure)| is enough as agnostic procedure?
  • "and the procedure itself changes depending on whether it is diagnostic or therapeutic" → What difference between therapeutic and diagnostic procedure needs there to be. For example aspiration - there is diagnostic aspiration and therapeutic aspiration. Maybe the amount of fluid that is aspirated is different, but the main different is the intent. Is that still a reason to keep both procedures or will this become one procedure 'aspiration'?
  • When is is correct to use diagnostic or therapeutic as intent? When it's stated explicitly in the FSN and there is no agnostic procedure? Do you have any examples. We see some examples in the editorial guide but we are in doubt if the guide is adapted to this proposal. Also examples of using the intent incorrectly would be helpful. 
  • Are there more intents on the candidate list to be inactivated, like preventive?
UK

 

We had problems with interpretation of when to use Has intent and this  has been causing problems. We do not receive many requests for procedures with the words "diagnostic" or "therapeutic" in the term, although occasionally it happens.

I have a question about the following : "Unless there is a clinical reason and the procedure itself changes depending on whether it is diagnostic or therapeutic then the agnostic procedure would be sufficient." Does it meant that in these circumstances, Has intent can be added?

It would be very useful if specific examples illustrating different scenarios are added to the guidance to help us with authoring.

600+ endoscopy procedures in core are modelled with Method - Inspection-action in stated view, which seems like an alternative way of saying that this procedure is performed for diagnostic reasons (to inspect something rather than to treat).

Ireland

 

Ireland agrees with inactivating these concepts as they are not currently in use here.
Sweden
Sweden agrees to the suggestion about inactivation of these concepts.
Australia

 

Sound proposal but without knowing which concepts are affected, hard to speak to the impact of the changes. However from a modelling perspective, it definitely makes sense. No objections from our end.












Member countries without a CMAG rep


CMAG response

DateCMAG ResponseNext steps










Final outcome: 

Date: 


  • No labels