Prioritisation of Content Tracker Components working page

 (2+3+3)/3=2.67

I think this component and the Qualifier Value are quite linked

(2+3+3)/3=2.67

Overall rating using tracker priorities - recommend high.

Group: This component has a mix of issues and while overall priority for the component is high, the priority of the issues at an individual level needs to be considered.

CRI: Clinical impact difficult to determine so went for average as I would expect there to be some.

DKA: Agree that clinical impact is difficult. A wide clinical range of issues in this box. User and terminology impact can be assumed to be high. However, given the diversity the component level might not be the right level of prioritization for this one.

EWO: I'm not sure many clinicians are focused on the complexities of SCT yet. Clinicians may do subsumption based queries but are more concerned that content looks correct in the patient record - no errors, odd abbreviations etc But any work to correct/assign parents would be seen as very useful indeed so some tracker items more clinically high priority than others.

Priority 1 for the component though noting this component contains a variety of issues and the actual priority of an individual issue would vary.

Average group rating was 2.67/3.

(2+3+2)

At least 85 requests → high user impact.

Hard to determine terminology impact as most of Qualifier value hierarchy is not used in definitions. Qualifier values are tightly coupled to the domains in which they are used.

Here is my raking if the drug concepts are dealt rather in the Drug Project.(2+3+3)/3=2.67

Here is my rating if this work is not part of the Drug Projec(3+3+3)/3=3

I think this component and the previous one are quite linked

(2+3+3)/3=2.67

Overall rating using tracker priorities - recommend high.

CRI: Clinical impact difficult to determine so went for average as I would expect there to be some.

DKA: Yes, clinical and terminology impact hard. Also, component level prioritization might not be helpful here.

EWO:agree it would be useful to look at in more detail though there is increasing interest in post-coordinated expression from clinicians.

Priority 1 for the component.  

Average group rating was 2.74/3.

(3+?+3)

User impact: cannot see how many CRS tickets are related to this.

Terminology impact: 3644 matches "neoplasm" (disorder, group by concept). 55342001 | Neoplastic disease (disorder) | has 7515 descendants (~ 10 % of all disorders), used to define 485 other concepts.

Are not used to define other concepts.

 (2+2+2)/3=2

Should that work be part of the collaborative work with WHO?

(3+2+2)/3=2.33

Overall rating using tracker priorities - recommend high.

CRI: Neoplasm work here basically outside of the WHO collaborative work.

EWO: on searching CRS for Neoplasm in inception/elaboration there are 96 requests.

Priority 1 for the component.

Average group rating was 2.42/3. (Excludes first review given user impact not quantified).

Disambiguation of therapeutic/iatrogenic abortion versus spontaneous abortion ('miscarriage') would be especially welcome albeit no small task.
Many classifications type concepts that would not sensibly be applied within a real time individual patient could be deprecated.
Also issues with “subjects of record” e.g.
- Foo disorder complicating pregnancy, childbirth AND/OR puerperium
- Foo disorder in pregnancy - [not yet] delivered
- Foo disorder >in mother< etc.
- Foo disorder >affecting management of mother<

(2+?+2)

Terminology impact: 198609003 | Complication of pregnancy, childbirth and/or the puerperium (disorder) | has 1315 descendants, 248982007 | Pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium finding (finding) | has 1979 descendants (489 in common w Complication...) + some other ones spread out.

Are not used to define many other concepts (62 and 188 respectively).

 (1+2+2)=1.67

I saw in other component tickets obstetrics, perhaps all ticket on that topic should be grouped together

(2+3+1)/3=2

Overall rating using tracker priorities - recommend - medium

CRI: did a search added Clinical Finding Obstetric issues. There is a small number of procedure ones as well which given interest should also be considered.

EWO: Some highly emotive content so rated high clinically. Couldn't see how many requests were linked so rated 2 based on other explanations.

Priority 2 for the component.

Average group rating was 2/3. (Excludes first review given user impact not quantified).

(2+2+3)

Terminology impact: high, as Observables is a new area, might require update of concept model guidance.

 (2+2+2)=2

There seem to be duplicated ticket in the different component trackers. Linkage and dependencies should probably be determined before tackling this one.

(3+3+3)/3=3

Overall rating using tracker priorities - recommend high.

CRI: Units of measure in this group also covered under Qualifier Value and the Units of Measure tracker.

EWO: There a lot of implementations in this area and high focus at present internationally for cancer and genomics

Priority 1 for the component.

Average group rating was 2.47/3

(2+3+3)=2.67

Clinical impact: hard to assess as it spans a wide range of clinical domains.

User impact: 20 trackers, 28 CRS tickets (+ everything related to LOINC mapping)

Terminology impact: high, as Observables is a new area, might require update of concept model guidance. Observables used to define 26721 other concepts (mostly findings).

(3+3+3)/3=3

Overall rating using tracker priorities - recommend high.

Priority 1 for the component.

Average group rating was 2.83/3 (Excludes second review given review not quantified).

(2+?+3)

Terminology impact: 5352 descendants of 363679005 | Imaging (procedure) | used to define 595 other concepts.

(2+2+2)/3=2

Overall rating using tracker priorities - recommend - medium

Priority 2 for the component.

Average group rating was 2.08/3 (Excludes first review given use impact not quantified).

The usage of Qualifier Value: Units of measure is heavily used in our drug product concepts. Better refined UOM would be of good assistance.
Comments: It would be good to share the remodelling agreement/document for Singapore Drug Dictionary to allows us to assess the impact to our use in the definition of strengths for our drug product concepts.
Question: Any plans to map UOM to UCUM?

(1+1+1)

Clinical/user impact: there are other standards (UCUM)

Terminology impact: 1177 descendants of used to define 0 (zero) concepts

Here is my raking if this work is not part of the Drug Projec(3+3+3)/3=3

(3+3+2)/3=2.67

Overall rating using tracker priorities - recommend high.

Priority 1 for the component. 

Average group rating was 2.87/3 (Not part of drug work)