User Support Reference Group

Page tree

Shane Byrnes

Owner
312 View 3 Comment In discussion Comments enabled In the category: DEUSG

Dear All,

Please find attached proposal from the UK for rationalisation of some concepts in the unit of measure sub-hierarchy.

Please share comments and feedback in advance of a DEUSG discussion.

Regards,
Shane

cc: Emma Melhuish 

Contributors (3)

3 Comments

  1. Shane Byrnes

  2. Nicola Ingram

    This an issue for the the duplicate descriptions project: Inactivation of Active Duplicate Descriptions in the Same Hierarchy

    Also a live issue for me concerning the synonyms  eg 418530008 |Tube - unit of product usage (qualifier value)| with synonym Tube. The Content Team currently have a CRS request for promotion of duplicate description Tube (physical object).

     May I ask about the proposal for concepts that are not semantic duplicates ("In many situations the unit of presentation for a product is the same as the unit of product usage. However this may not always be the case such as where doses are measured in terms of drops, sprays or puffs.") - are these to be moved under Unit of presentation (unit of presentation)? 

    Will be great to gather comments and feedback on this proposal including any impact of inactivation of << 408102007 |Unit dose (qualifier value)| - thanks for raising.

  3. Linda Bird

    I agree with this proposal. Consolidating these two overlapping hierarchies is a good idea - and the << |Unit of presentation| concepts are the ones that need to be kept, due to their significant usage in the drug model.

    With respect to concepts in the |Unit dose| subhierarchy that are not semantic duplicates (e.g. scoop, spray, squirt), moving these into the |Unit of presentation| hierarchy would require SNOMED's definition of "Unit of presentation" to become broader than that used by EDQM. However, it would certainly be much simpler, from an implementation perspective to have these all together in the same subhierarchy.