Page tree

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

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Next »

Date: 2023-01-23

Time:

0600 - 0730 PDT

1400 - 1530 UTC


Zoom Meeting Details




Meeting Files:




Meeting minutes:

The call recording is located here.


Objectives

  • Obtain consensus on agenda items

Discussion items

Item
Description
Owner
Notes
Action
1Call to order and role call

This meeting is being recorded to ensure that important discussion points are not missed in the minutes.  The recording will be available to the SNOMED International community.  Joining the meeting by accepting the Zoom prompt declares that you have no objection to your comments being recorded


  • Recording of meeting approved by participants.
2

Conflicts of interest and agenda review

None noted.



Expansion of range for HAS INTERPRETATION

Scenarios where qualifier values are not sufficient; e.g. at risk findings, coma score subscore results

From GC-1248 - Getting issue details... STATUS

In developing the model for defining risk findings, we have run up against an issue with describing the specific risk factor as the range of HAS INTERPRETATION is limited to 

<<  [260245000 |Finding value (qualifier value)||http://snomed.info/id/260245000]  OR
 <<  [263714004 |Colors (qualifier value)||http://snomed.info/id/263714004]  OR
 <<  [308916002 |Environment or geographical location (environment / location)||http://snomed.info/id/308916002]

There are two approaches to modeling specific risk factors.

  • Use the DUE TO relationship to describe the risk factor
  • Use the INTERPRETS = <<80943009 |Risk factor (observable entity)|. HAS INTERPRETATION = <Clinical finding OR <Event OR <417662000 |History of clinical finding in subject (situation)| OR <416940007 |Past history of procedure (situation)|

Example 1:

1184692002 |At increased risk due to lack of fire extinguisher in residence (finding)|

Clinical finding:

   DUE TO Inadequate fire extinguishing equipment in residence (finding)   

   {INTERPRETS =  Risk level,     HAS INTERPRETATION =  Increased}

Example 2:

1184692002 |At increased risk due to lack of fire extinguisher in residence (finding)|

Clinical finding:

   {INTERPRETS =  Risk level,     HAS INTERPRETATION =  Increased}

   {INTERPRETS =  Risk factor,    HAS INTERPRETATION = Inadequate fire extinguishing equipment in residence (finding)}

Currently, there is no way to assign values to the Observable 80943009 |Risk factor (observable entity)| due to the limitations of the range of HAS INTERPRETATION.  Existing use of the 80943009 |Risk factor (observable entity)| has been restricted to a few concepts that also use DUE TO as the relationship to the factor with no HAS INTERPRETATION VALUE (e.g. 1162398002 |Adverse health risk due to mold in residence (finding)|)

There is a similar issue with assigning the values associated with assessment instrument Observables

There is a huge risk in extending the range of HAS INTERPRETATION, but using this pattern is a better representation of the definition than the implied relationship using the DUE modeling pattern.

Discussion:



Mechanical Complication of deviceJim Case 

Should "Mechanical complication of device" be a disorder or a finding?

Current situation:

111746009 |Mechanical complication of device (disorder)| has 216 subtypes, all of which refer to a failure of a device without specifying a deleterious effect on the patient. 

       e.g. 285961000119107 |Mechanical breakdown of prosthetic heart valve (disorder)|

We also have disorder concepts that refer to a patient condition due to mechanical failure of a device 

       e.g. 5053004 |Cardiac insufficiency due to prosthesis (disorder)|

Without specifying the resultant condition associated with device mechanical issues, is it appropriate that these are represented as patient disorders, or should they be findings that may be related to disorders in the patient?

Discussion:




Potential for inactivation of navigational conceptsJim Case 

It was suggested at a recent Modeling Advisory Group meeting that SNOMED should consider inactivating the 363743006 |Navigational concept (navigational concept)| hierarchy.  A list of 635 primitive concepts that are unable to be defined due to their highly contextual use.  The concern is that because they are more or less "orphan" concepts, and provide no analytical advantage, they would be discouraged from use in medical records.  However, because many of these descriptions are those that are commonly used in clinical records, with organizationally specific meaning, they are being entered into EHRs.

UK has high usage of a few of these:

CONCEPTID             FSN                                                                                                                         USAGE 2011-2022

394617004              Result (navigational concept)                                                                                 48,227,610

160237006              History/symptoms (navigational concept)                                                             10,146,392

309157004              Normal laboratory finding (navigational concept)                                                 581,209

267368005              Endocrine, nutritional, metabolic and immunity disorders                                   160,475

243800003              Test categorized by action status (navigational concept)                                      108,176

250541005              Biochemical finding (navigational concept)                                                           100,632

It is unclear how these are used in clinical records although from the above list it appears they may be used as document headers .  An inquiry to the UK resulted in an interesting observation that some of these highly used concepts are primarily found in only one of two major primary care systems, and some that were not used much a decade ago are beginning to increase in usage. It was proposed to SNOMED that aside from the highly used concepts above, the remainder of the navigational concepts could be inactivated without much impact on users.  However, we would need to consider carefully before inactivating the above concepts without suitable replacements due to their high, albeit incorrect, usage.

Question: Should these be replaced with Record artifact concepts or something else?

Discussion:




Review of Surgical approach and definition of Surgical procedure

Issue reference: GC-1142 - Getting issue details... STATUS



10AOBEAG



11Next meetingEAG