Descriptions:
| Term | description type | Language/acceptability | Language/acceptability | Case significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burn of [body structure] (disorder) | FSN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
Burn of [body structure] | SYN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
Concept model:
Attribute Cardinality | Attribute | Value | role group number | Role Group Cardinality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1..1 | 0 | N/A | ||
| 1..1 | 1 | 1..* | ||
| 1..1 | [body structure] << 123037004 |Body structure (body structure)| | 1 |
Definition status:
900000000000073002 |Defined (core metadata concept)|
Applies To:
<< 125666000 |Burn (disorder)|
Rules for description generation:
JIRA tickets
INFRA-3184 - Getting issue details... STATUS
10 Comments
Jim Case
Should this have an ASSOCIATED MORPHOLOGY range of <<48333001 |Burn injury (morphologic abnormality)|? Or is this restricted to solely FSNs with just "burn" in it?
Penni Hernandez
I was trying to constrain it because there are other templates for subtypes of burn injury (e.g. full thickness; partial thickness), and I am deferring "types" of burns, e.g. (chemical, lightning). But this may need to be reconsidered.
Feikje Hielkema-Raadsveld
Hi Penni Hernandez Do you know if there's a separate template or issue for first/second/third degree chemical burn? All I can find in IHTSDO-810 (artf6238) Burns is that they present a modelling challenge (in which I concur...).
Penni Hernandez
Hi, I did this burn work and the tracker stopped short of deciding what to do with "chemical burns" so that work has yet to done. There are also challenges around burns of mucosa (e.g. eye, mouth). Feikje Hielkema-Raadsveld
Feikje Hielkema-Raadsveld
Hi Penni HernandezRight, I see. Should I submit a separate CRS concerning chemical burns? We've got a number of concepts in our extension for first/second/third degree chemical burns which we can't model properly. Or I could push a solution by creating morphologies for them, and then submitting them for promotion
Peter G. Williams
Monica Harry It looks like we're losing aligned concepts here because burns are now being defined as due to a traumatic event and this template doesn't allow for that.
I'll add a topic to our QI call for discussing a policy of keeping templates in line with modeling decisions - and all the way to production. This template is actually live in the template service but here it's showing "Ready for implementation".
CC Yongsheng Gao Michael Chu
Jim Case
Peter G. Williams ,
I'll take the hit on this. The change to adding the DUE TO relationship came much after this template was created (and after much discussion about traumatic injuries) and I failed to go back and update it. In this case, do we want to create new version and obsolete this one or just update?
cc: Monica Harry
Peter G. Williams
Thanks Jim Case. What do you say Yongsheng Gao?
One of the things I struggle with, with Templates not being first class citizens that are versioned and published in a release is being able to look back in time and work out what our historic position was. So my not-very-strong feeling is that we should create a new template version to allow us to track progression over time, but I don't know that we're quite at the level of maturity where it makes much difference.
Yongsheng Gao
Hi Jim Case Peter G. Williams, This template has been implemented in the authoring platform. A new version template needs to be created separately. Then, this one will be archived after the new one is in PROD.
Jim Case
Yongsheng Gao and Peter G. Williams
I will create a new one for review.