Time:
0900 - 1030 PST
1700 - 1830 UTC
Zoom Meeting Details
Jim Case is inviting you to a scheduled SNOMED International Zoom meeting.
Topic: SNOMED Editorial Advisory Group Conference Call
Time: Mar 11, 2024 09:00 Pacific Time (US and Canada)
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android:
https://snomed.zoom.us/j/82743278235?pwd=eLhrb3vfW2PG0jDwtvgm3OKPxiLqjw.1
Password: 351999
Attendees
Chair:
AG Members:
Invitees:
Observers
Apologies:
Meeting minutes:
The call recording is located here.
Objectives
- Obtain consensus on agenda items
Discussion items
Item | Description | Owner | Notes | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Call 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 |
| |
| 2 | Conflicts of interest and agenda review | None recorded | ||
| 3 | Inactivation reason review | During Concept inactivation, the SNOMED International Authoring Platform presents users with a list of Concept Inactivation Indicators that includes "Classification derived concept", but the concept that's used in the RF2 is actually 1186917008 |Classification derived component|. The thinking behind that concept creation was that this inactivation indicator could also be used when inactivating descriptions in certain scenarios (although this has not been implemented in the AP), as reflected in the dual parents for that concept: Questions for the EAG to consider:
Whatever the outcome, the Authoring Platform could/should be brought into line so that the user interface and the various Inactivation Indicator concepts align (see MAINT-2481 - on hold pending discussion) | ||
| 8 | MRCM change and revision of Physical object hierarchy |
11/27/2023 Discussion: Requirements were developed with lab specialists to meet their needs. There needs to be some more specific use cases to make the effort worth it other than just making the hierarchy more manageable. Additives are substances that would be incorporated into the specimen, whereas the separator attribute represents something that is not incorporated into the specimen. Also suggested that separators should not also be physical objects, but should be substances. What is the impact of adding these to other hierarchies that might use these needs to be considered. There is some use for the HAS INTENDED SPECIMEN even knowing it is not "always and necessarily true". How should "spray-dried coating" be modeled in this scenario? Is it an additive or just a substance coating on the container? How manufacturers represent the difference between coatings and additives needs to be considered. Need definitions for each of the attributes that make it clear to modelers what substances are allowed. Will the level of effort needed to make these SD be worth the results. 11/27/2023 Decision: Referred back to Daniel Karlsson and Feikje Hielkema-Raadsveld for revision based on comments from the EAG Discussion: Feikje Hielkema-Raadsveld and Daniel Karlsson have reviewed the comments from Monique van Berkum (see attached document) and while not disagreeing that the current state of containers would benefit little due to the small number of affected concepts, with new requests for container types coming in as part of European health projects that for allow better maintenance of a growing area of the terminology. It is felt that the discussion of whether creating a concept model for containers is more in scope for this discussion than perhaps the model itself. Examples of new container types that would benefit from a concept model would be helpful. Decision: Postponed to next meeting due to time constraint. | ||
| Bypass graft revision proposal | As part of the QI project, substantial changes to the representation of bypass grafts and shunts have been proposed. A briefing note (attached) and a detailed document for the proposed changes (referenced in the briefing note) are provided. Discussion: Decision: | |||
| Update on impact of replacing surgical approach with procedure approach | A document describing some of the impacts of the proposed replacement of 424876005 |Surgical approach (attribute)| with the currently unapproved 116688005 |Procedure approach (attribute)| is attached. Discussion: Decision: | |||
| 9 | AOB | EAG | ||
| 10 | Next meeting | April 16 business meeting |