2020-02-012 - DPG Meeting

Conflicts of interest

Notice of recording

No conflicts raised

Recording advice given.

Established a link with the Primary Care Diabetes Europe to discuss possible involvement - Planned for Friday

• Feedback on Spread Sheet DR https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x_pIm36QXYUP5n7kmaSLa10DkBCl1NOU/edit#gid=751878744
• Input from GS:

 1)     Each spreadsheet front page/instructions should contain the hierarchy of the set being reviewed.

This allows the setting of the mind and many are familiar with the READ hierarchy eg:

Ø  Disease

Ø  Disorder of body site

Ø  Disorder of body system

Ø  Disorder of endocrine system, Disorder of glucose metabolism

Ø  Diabetes mellitus

o   Review Set Semantic Tag = Disorders

§  Move Semantic Tag to Instructions as these should be all the same for each review set, I assume

2)      A definition of each column, and clearly indicate which columns to be updated by the reviewer

a.       Hierarchy – Each term is list in hierarchal order, If a term has an extra underscore that the one above it in means it is a child of the one above

3)      Instructions to embed reference material which supports an opinion which contradicts the current Term/Description

a.       Hopefully this will not be overly necessary.

4)      Within review set - Consideration to hide the SCTID as this is not being reviewed and frees up display/review space

5)      A link to the ‘discussion board’

6)      Review Objectives

a.       Is this the best FSN/Preferred term, which is potentially localised if consensus was not obtained

b.       Is the term(FSN/Synonym) still relevant or is it a duplicate

c.       Additional Synonyms, if considered necessary

d.       Localised - Consumer friendly terms, if considered necessary

e.       Localised – Rare terms identified, but I don’t think you were keen on this

                 i.      I am trying to decide whether to add these to each spreadsheet to allow me to consolidate for localised purposes

               ii.      But I am thinking these could be hard to maintain locally so ummmm

f.        Are the terms aligned with the editorial rules, but I believe this may have already occurred following a review of the editorial rules?

7)      Include the link to the editorial rules which will be helpful for new comers/specialists

• Fortnightly meetings
• 2 weeks for each round of review. Discussion on that review held 2 weeks after that. Allows time for collation of results.
• Group to start the next review whilst results of previous review being collated.
• Spreadsheet:
  • Development of instructions and an explanation content for reviewers
    • Include description conventions for awareness e.g. FSN. Also noting countries can add localised terms.
  • Potential for additional columns for local and consumer terms (use at a national only level) -only for use where desired at a national level. Management of this information needs to be considered as not used by SNOMED International.
  • Keep number of concepts for review at a reasonable level. Split areas into subsections if required.
• Training for clinicians on SNOMED CT? Updated needed please - see above
• Questions from clinicians during the review- approach to be used? Email or post on discussion section of site. Paul to advise on preference.
• If required Paul and/or Cathy can do a call with clinicians (outside of the reviews) where they have questions relevant to the work/SNOMED.

Agreed 2 weekly from this meeting onwards

Next meeting