IHTSDO Editorial Advisory Group James T. Case Head of Terminology.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Semantic Interoperability in Health Informatics: Lessons Learned 10 January 2008Semantic Interoperability in Health Informatics: Lessons Learned 1 Medical.
Advertisements

Configuration Management
United Nations Statistics Division
HITSC Clinical Quality Workgroup Jim Walker March 27, 2012.
ITIL: Service Transition
Mapping from SNOMED CT to ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM Dr. Kin Wah Fung U.S. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Recheck Examinations and Results Of course it’s hard. That’s what makes it difficult.
System Analysis and Design (SAD )
SE 470 Software Development Processes James Nowotarski 21 April 2003.
IS 421 Information Systems Management James Nowotarski 16 September 2002.
Planning. SDLC Planning Analysis Design Implementation.
Presentation on Integrating Management Systems
Configuration Management Avoiding Costly Confusion mostly stolen from Chapter 27 of Pressman.
Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines
The IHTSDO Workbench A Terminology Management Tool John Gutai, IHTSDO May 2011 For OHT.
S/W Project Management
© 2012 IBM Corporation Rational Insight | Back to Basis Series Documents and Record Control Liu Xue Ning.
Using IBM Rational Unified Process for software maintenance
SNOMED for Clinical Records: Tools to facilitate implementation. Jeff R. Wilcke, DVM, MS, DACVCP AVMA Liaison to the SNOMED Editorial Board.
Concept Model for observables, investigations, and observation results For the IHTSDO Observables Project Group and LOINC Coordination Project Revision.
Project Tracking. Questions... Why should we track a project that is underway? What aspects of a project need tracking?
Configuration Management (managing change). Starter Questions... Which is more important?  stability  progress Why is change potentially dangerous?
1 The Impact of SAS 112 on Governmental Financial Statement Audits GAQC Member Conference Call January 4, 2007 Presented by Chuck Landes, CPA.
Software Process Models.
Requirements Artifacts Precursor to A & D. Objectives: Requirements Overview  Understand the basic Requirements concepts and how they affect Analysis.
Planning and Community Development Department Housing Element City Council February 03, 2014.
1 FRENCH PROPOSAL FOR ESARR6 1 - BACKGROUND - 15/02/00 : Kick-off meeting, Presentation of the CAA/SRG input (SW01), Request from the chairman to comment.
CRM Prep Workshop Part 4 Records Appraisal, Retention, Protection and Disposition.
Standards Certification Education & Training Publishing Conferences & Exhibits 1Copyright © 2006 ISA ISA-SP99: Security for Industrial Automation and Control.
Standards Analysis Summary vMR –Pros Designed for computability Compact Wire Format Aligned with HeD Efforts –Cons Limited Vendor Adoption thus far Represents.
Health eDecisions Use Case 2: CDS Guidance Service Strawman of Core Concepts Use Case 2 1.
Query Health Concept-to-Codes (C2C) SWG Meeting #11 February 28,
TCPS 2 Consultation: Revisions Relevant to Clinical Trials Laura-Lee Balkwill, PhD, Policy Analyst Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research CAREB.
Planning & Community Development Department Zoning Code Amendment Public Hearing Proposed elimination of the 50% review step from the design review process.
HIT Standards Committee Vocabulary Task Force Task Force Report and Recommendation Jamie Ferguson Kaiser Permanente Betsy Humphreys National Library of.
Moving To the Year 2000:Implementing 4010 Implementation Resolution Process Rich Emrich EDI Manager J.M. Schneider.
Winter 2011SEG Chapter 11 Chapter 1 (Part 1) Review from previous courses Subject 1: The Software Development Process.
Update: AUL Guidance Revisions Summary of Comments June 23, 2011 Peggy Shaw Workgroup Chair.
SNOMED CT A Technologist’s Perspective Gaur Sunder Principal Technical Officer & Incharge, National Release Center VC&BA, C-DAC, Pune.
C-HOBIC FINDINGS VALIDATION - REPORT AND CONSENSUS ACTIVITY Kathryn Hannah, Anne Casey, Zac Whitewood-Moores C-HOBIC.
SNOMED CT Vendor Introduction 27 th October :30 (CET) Implementation Special Interest Group Tom Seabury IHTSDO.
California Department of Public Health / 1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Standards and Guidelines for Healthcare Surge during Emergencies How.
SNOMED CT Family of Languages Dr Linda Bird, IHTSDO Implementation Specialist.
Nursing Occupations Proposed by: Cynthia Lundberg, BSN Judith Warren, PhD, RN.
Software Process Models.
Post-coordination Implementation Challenges Project IHTSDO Conference October 2010 Jay Kola.
Representing nursing in SNOMED CT Proposal for TR or Guideline.
All Recurring Key Themes The below list includes themes across many of the different presentations to date. The next 2 slides address how these may be.
IHTSDO Education & Implementation Update Dr Linda Bird Implementation Specialist.
Editorial Advisory Group IHTSDO Business Meeting London April 2016 James T. Case Head of Terminology.
Oncology in SNOMED CT NCI Workshop The Role of Ontology in Big Cancer Data Session 3: Cancer big data and the Ontology of Disease Bethesda, Maryland May.
Canadian SNOMED CT® Extensions Challenges & Lessons learned Presentation to Implementation SIG October 2012 Presented by Linda Parisien and Beverly Knight.
Role of Advisory Groups David Markwell Head of Education E-Learning Advisory Group meeting
A Proposed Approach to Binding SNOMED CT to HL7 FHIR Dr Linda Bird Senior Implementation Specialist.
Elaboration popo.
ITIL: Service Transition
LOINC – SNOMED CT Cooperation on Content
Representation of Hypersensitivity, Allergy and adverse reactions in SNOMED CT Bruce Goldberg, MD, PhD.
Kathy Giannangelo, Map Lead
Editorial Advisory Group Drug Project Discussion Topics
Scope The scope of this test is to make a preliminary assessment of the fitness of the Draft Observables and Investigation Model (Observables model)
Global Grid Forum GridForge
SNOMED CT E-Learning Status & Planning September Update (for ELRG)
General/family practice RefSet and ICPC mapping project – overview
Drug and Substance Project Update
Drug and Substance Project Update
Configuration Management (managing change)
The Features of a Product or System
Architecture for ICD 11 and SNOMED CT Harmonization
A bit more about Read Codes and SNOMED CT
Presentation transcript:

IHTSDO Editorial Advisory Group James T. Case Head of Terminology

Agenda ▪Welcome & ApologiesChair ▪Conflicts of InterestChair ▪Review of Terms of ReferenceChair ▪Pre-coordination of lateralityGroup ▪Review of prioritization for content tracker itemsGroup ▪Content model needsGroup ▪Application of ECE guidance retrospectively. Maintenance of ambiguous descriptionsBGO ▪Unilateral – retire or retain?Group ▪Limited status concepts – keep or retireGroup ▪SNOMED CT as interface or reference terminology?Group ▪Conference call scheduleGroup ▪Any Other BusinessGroup ▪Date of next meetingGroup

▪Purpose of the AG ▪“…provide IHTSDO with advice and guidance on issues related to… editorial policy…” ▪Scope ▪Editorial advice not resolved by the SNOMED CT Editorial Panel ▪Providing a “second opinion” on proposed editorial guidance ▪Review and advise on content tracker proposals ▪Review and update SNOMED CT Editorial Guide ▪Perform out-of-cycle editorial investigation and review for complex issues ▪Out of Scope ▪Content development prioritization ▪Derivative development prioritization ▪Tooling Terms of Reference

▪Membership ▪Four members staggered terms ▪Certified Consultant Terminologists (or similar) ▪Two year terms – two consecutive terms max ▪SNOMED CT Editorial Panel – ex officio ▪Meetings ▪Two face-to-face meeting per year ▪Fortnightly meetings between (if agenda items available) ▪Minutes stored on AG confluence site ▪Time commitment ▪Up to three hours per week Terms of Reference - continued

Pre-coordination of Laterality

▪Documented as “Temporarily not allowed” since 2011 ▪Existing pre-coordination artifact: artf “Concepts with pre-coordinated laterality may be regarded as excessive pre-coordination. With rare exceptions, it should be possible to make the recording of laterality part of the electronic health record, with record architecture elements to record, store, transmit, retrieve and analyze. Post-coordination is further supported with the Revision of the anatomy hierarchy, which has developed (draft) refset indicating those anatomical codes for which lateralization is sensible. This makes pre-coordination even less necessary in the findings/disorders and procedures.” History of laterality

▪Many existing EHR systems do not have the ability to store laterality as a model element. ▪Many large EHR systems do not have the capability of managing post-coordinated expressions ▪The proposed refset of anatomical structures that can be lateralized is not readily available ▪There is a substantial amount of lateralized content existing in SNOMED CT, users see precedence for adding it. ▪A large number of “bilateral” content requests have been received that cannot be adequately modeled. Laterality challenges

▪Should the restriction on the addition of lateralized content to the International release be reconsidered? ▪If so, which option to add laterality-based content should be adopted? ▪Options - Abstracted from art Bilateral clinical findings and disorder concepts ▪Option 1 – Nested role groups ▪Option 2 – Pre-coordinate laterality with anatomic structure ▪Option 3 – Use additional finding site with “left/right side of body” Laterality discussion

Option 1: Nested role group Closed fracture of metatarsal bone of right foot Associated morphology Finding site ≡ Disease Fracture, closed Fifth metatarsal structure Laterality Right

▪Pros ▪Eliminates the need for explosion of lateralized anatomic structures ▪Introduction of nesting addresses many other modeling issues ▪Cons ▪Requires nesting – not currently supported by tooling or release file structure ▪Requires changes to MRCM to restrict anatomy to only those structures that are actually “lateralizable” Pros and cons: Option 1

Option 2: Lateralized anatomic structure Closed fracture of metatarsal bone of right foot Associated morphology Finding site ≡ Disease Fracture, closed New concept Structure of metatarsal bone of right foot

▪Pros ▪Simplifies modeling to a single un-nested role group ▪Ensures that ONLY “lateralizable” anatomic structures are available for use ▪Allows for retirement of multiple abstract anatomical concepts related to “bi-laterality” ▪Cons ▪Requires creation of a large number of lateralized anatomic structures Pros and cons: Option 2

Option 3: Additional finding site Closed fracture of metatarsal bone of right foot Associated morphology Finding site ≡ Disease Fracture, closed Finding site Structure of right half of body Fifth metatarsal structure

▪Pros ▪Flattens the laterality model (no nesting needed) ▪Close to “user-form” ▪Does not require any changes to the concept model ▪Does not require the creation of new anatomic structure concepts ▪Is “consistent” with the post-coordination expression syntax ▪Has precedence in current content (i.e. refinement of finding site on fully defined concepts) ▪Cons ▪Can only be used when all associated role groups are related to the same side of the body (99.99%?) Pros and cons: Option 3

▪Should the restriction on the addition of lateralized content to the International release be reconsidered? ▪If so, which option to add laterality-based content should be adopted? ▪Changes to the editorial guide ▪Scope of revision project Laterality discussion

Prioritization of tracker items

▪Open tracker items ▪Content tracker – 748 open items ▪302 rated “High” or “Highest” ▪Pre-coordination tracker – 200 open items ▪Most rated “Low” ▪Review of size – content tracker only ▪142 rated “large” ▪196 rated “medium” ▪356 rated “small”, “single concept” or “less than 10 concepts” ▪54 not assigned size ▪Currently under review ▪Lifecycle phase ▪None – 5 items ▪Inception – 578 items ▪Elaboration – 108 items ▪Construction – 42 items ▪Transition – 15 items Current status

▪82 items opened in the last year ▪3 items closed in the last year ▪New items being added faster than they can be resolved ▪High volume of day-to-day work prevents addressing time-consuming editorial issues ▪Bottlenecks ▪Review of documentation from Consultant Terminologists a bottleneck ▪What role can the Editorial AG play to remove this bottleneck? ▪Key point is moving from Elaboration to Construction phase –Then it goes to the content AG for prioritization ▪Resources not available to do the construction Content tracker discussion items

Content model changes

▪Domain and range revisions ▪Clinical course – Add additional disease phases ▪E.g. “In remission”, “latent” ▪Specimen substance – physical object ▪Allows for public and environmental health monitoring ▪Potential new attributes ▪During ▪E.g. “Disorder X DURING procedure Y ▪Has prodcut role ▪Needed to support the specific roles that are being removed as IS-A relationships from the product hierarchy Content model changes recently requested

Implementing the Event- Condition-Episode guidance Bruce Goldberg

▪Update on X with Y, X due to Y ▪Clarification on “due to” vs. “co-occurrent” vs. “co-occurrent and due to” ▪Has “Associated with” been “banished” from use? ▪Retrospective application of the guidance ▪Scope of concepts that can be “remodeled” ▪Is guidance clear enough for editors to apply consistently? ▪Clarification of potentially ambiguous descriptions ECE discussion topics

Unilateral concepts artf6236 : Unilateral

▪Most “Unilateral” concepts moved from Clinical Findings to the Situation with Explicit Context hierarchy in 2009 ▪Current concept model cannot explicitly state “one side but not the other”. ▪Unilateral is ambiguous as to which side is affected ▪Without negation, in the open world Unilateral is silent about the status of “the other side”. ▪May be present and not affected by the procedure or finding ▪May or may not be present ▪Content most likely originated from a classification that is agnostic about laterality (e.g. ICD-9-CM) ▪Question: Are these clinically useful or a patient safety issue? Unilateral discussion topics

Limited status concepts

▪Currently modeled with a WAS A relationship ▪When the WAS A target needs to be retired, how do you fix the relationship to the limited status concept? Issues with limited status concepts

SNOMED CT – Interface or reference terminology? Open discussion

Conference call scheduling Any other business Date of next meeting