Is there a need for a property qualifier value for 'Index' results? If not, what is the property? This is a calculation from quantitations that turns them into a numeric dimensionless result value in relation to the integer ordinal value '1.0' with this number representing equality, range being any decimal fraction number. e.g. Antibody index, Free androgen index, Haemolysis index, Lipaemia index, Icterus index. This is not a percent but a decimal fraction less than or greater than 1.0 without
I've had a request for codes for four types of organisms: Livestock- and non-livestock-associated MRSA and MSSA. Now in the Netherlands we generally report MRSA as a species (Staphyloccus aureus) with SNOMED, with LOINC codes that denote its resistance/susceptability to various antibiotics.
But how to handle the livestock-associated bit? Appararently it is a feature of the organism - something that they determine based on the culture results, not the origin of the specimen. I can't fin
Hi all, we're looking for a code for an isolate specimen of a (suspected) parasite. The local microbiologist are in favour of using the same code as for other isolates, i.e. 119303007 | Microbial isolate specimen (specimen) | - on the basis that they're isolates, period.
I'm not sure you could classify all parasites as microbials though, so that code doesn't really work. There is no alternative in SNOMED that I can detect - though I could request a new concept for 'isolate' as parent of
SNOMED International is still in discussion with the Regenstrief Institute regarding a future collaborative agreement. The current agreement is in effect until at least the end of 2021. The current SNOMED expression set for the top 2000 LOINC terms is currently undergoing revision and updating to reflect changes since the initial publication of the expressions in 2017. It is anticipated that this updating will be completed in early 2022.
Options for modelling cycle threshold (Ct) results that are reported alongside the DNA/RNA presence results for microorganisms, reviewing existing SNOMED options and examining LOINC and NPU/IUPAC representations.
By the definition of entity from M-W below (my higlight), I believe that entity is broad enough. Anything that isn't an entity would not be countable. So, yes, this would be the one to use. One could argue that plain "Count" should be a synonym.
Definition of entity
1a: BEING https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being, EXISTENCE https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existence especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence
b: the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes
2: something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality
3: an organization (such as a business or governmental unit) that has an identity separate from those of its members
dkarlsson Hi Daniel et al. A late question arose in Observables meeting 2022/3/21 as to whether there is a contradiction between a. maintenance of procedure codes for evaluations using assessment scales leading to a scale core and b. the inactivation of such procedure codes for laboratory evaluations. Much of this is reviewed above so I shan't repeat it (much) but merely say that there are different types of orderables so the binary is not simple (a passing thought that SNOMED would benefit from a classification of orderables, at leaast for lab, happy to pitch in on that from work I've done in the past). My main point is that an equivalence is being suggested that IMHO isn't there so the question needs that assumption unpacking.
I think a true equivalence would need to bring lab orderables into logically expressive line with scale orderables but I don't think that is useful or do-able. It would mean something like:
Assessment of renal function of subject by measurement of creatinine in serum. (Not simply, 'measurement of creatinine in serum')
This example mirrors (I think) the rough model for scale orderables although the reason is implicit in the scale definition. There is no case for this model in lab procedures. Indications for procedures should not be combined with procedures in principle (although there are many examples unfortunately). A clinician monitoring dialysis efficacy in an anephric patient is not looking at renal function. It's also a simplistic analogue of renal function. What is performed as a result of the orderable is not always and cannot simply be defined in the orderable and is a labspace issue much as a detailed surgical procedure is a theatrespace issue. Such nesting is not needed. (Note I am not party to the UK review of dual coding lab procedure and observable for everything.)
I think there is a deeper division of observing as observer and measuring as actor which is sometimes useful, sometimes not. The same goes for how evaluation, examination, measurement, observation, capture and recording are deeply nested. Basically I don't think we are comparing like with like and exploding all things into aligned forms on this nesting while logical/reproducible isn't obviously useful. Therefore I support the existing pattern of scale procedure orderable with score observables and the proposed lab pattern of retaining panels and other orderables (screens, profiles, studies etc) as procedures with individual reportable results as observables. I think the distinction is justifiable notwithstanding inevitable edge cases.
There is a registry metadata initiative in Sweden. Just let me know if you want to get in contact with them.
https://www.registerforskning.se/en/register-i-sverige/verktyget-rut/ https://www.registerforskning.se/en/register-i-sverige/verktyget-rut/
/Daniel
Is 117054005 |Prothrombin time inverse ratio (procedure)| a valid concept? We cannot find a strong reference for it. LOINC includes "Prothrombin time inverse ratio" as a related name of "Prothrombin index"(https://loinc.org/6302-4/). It also appears as a related name associated with an inactive LOINC Term (http://www.hipaaspace.com/medical_billing/coding/logical.observation.identifiers.names.and.codes/5896-5).
dkarlsson I had posted the above question a couple of months ago and haven't received a response. Could we add it as an agenda item for our next OIMP call? There is a request to inactivate this concept. Thanks, Suzanne
I have appended to the last meeting page the presentation from today to the Anesthesiology CRG on Glasgow Coma Scale and machine learning using the neurological exam
Jim Case