Date
9th, February 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
GoToMeeting Details
Attendees
- Daniel Karlssen, Olivier Bodenreider, Elaine Wooler, Linda Parisien, Matt Cordell, John Fountain, Elze de Groot, Toni Morrison
- Observer - Suzy Roy
Apologies
- None
Previous Meetings
| Title | Creator | Modified |
|---|---|---|
| No content found. | ||
2 Comments
Matt Cordell
For those using the O/E concepts, are there specific examples of where the replacement concepts are inadequate?
The O/E seem like duplicates to me, as I'm not sure how you can declare a "finding" without some sort of "examination". If the specific term is required, perhaps synonyms is an option?
Elaine Wooler
Hi Matt, This content originated from UK Read codes and was an attempt to assert context within a legacy Primary Care terminology that had no other way of dealing with context. They represent a clinical finding that is “observed” or “not observed” on physical examination of the patient and went hand in hand with C/O – complaining of – content which was presence asserted by the patient.
Indeed they can be viewed as duplicates although there was some attempt to model some of them:
O/E content: Finding Informer - 420158005 | Performer of method and FINDING METHOD - 5880005 | Physical examination procedure. C/O content: FINDING INFORMER - 419358007 | Subject of record or other provider of history.
The content was also reviewed as part of Sarita and I’s Presence of X project though it was deemed out of scope (some O/E content contains the word present or absent – just to complicate things further!) A small number can be found in the Situation hierarchy.
It may also be worth getting an opinion from the observable redesign group on this content as some of these could be viewed as Observation Results with the TECHNIQUE being physical examination as opposed to imaging, measurement, evaluation etc..