Page tree

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

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Current »

Call to order and roll call

Chair, Jim Case (JCA) welcomed the group. Attendance is recorded on the main meeting page.

JCA told the group that he would be changing the order of the agenda in order to finish some administrative business first.

5. EAG Self-Evaluation

The AG members agreed that the AG was functioning well, progress was being made, and the group should continue. There was general agreement about how more meetings were needed in order to make even more progress, but there was acknowledgement that it would be difficult due to busy schedules and time zones. GRE suggested holding 3 face-to-face meetings per year. JCA said it would be useful if more editorial changes being decided internally in IHTSDO could be brought to the Editorial AG so that their comments could contribute to the discussions and decisions.

6. Goals for next quarter/year

KCA suggested Wellington could kick off discussion on a longer term project of looking at the hierarchies for diseases, diagnoses, findings and observations and trying to find a strategy to reduce the confusion on what to use where. He said even getting a statement of the problem would be a great outcome for Wellington, and that could lead to discussion of options. JCA agreed that working on the structure of the problem would be a good first step, allowing them to then break it into smaller tasks.

PAM noted genomics was moving ahead quickly in the UK due to government financing, but it would be useful to have a more collaborative, international approach. JCA conceded that genomics had been discussed internally but nothing had been progressed.

KCA said it would be very useful for staff to provided some use cases to the Editorial AG. JCA agreed that the team wanted to do that for future large-scale terminology development projects - making them strongly use-case based. He said typical requests for changes were very small, involving the submitter just needing a concept, rather than having a more robust, verifiable use case being the request.

KCA said that one of the problems with SNOMED was that it was supposed to be meeting the needs of lots of different groups, who were not using it in the same way. He noted that everything in Epic had to have one and only one code. It could not even handle present or absent.

 

 

  • No labels