Page tree

StatusReady for implementation
Version

1.0

Descriptions:

Termdescription typeLanguage/acceptabilityLanguage/acceptabilityCase significance

[course] [periods of life] [morphology] of [body structure] caused by [agent] due to [fin/proc] (disorder)

FSNus:Pgb:Pci

[course] [periods of life] [morphology] of [body structure] caused by [agent] due to [fin/proc]

SYNus:Pgb:Pci

Concept model:

Definition status:  


900000000000073002 |Defined|

Applies to

<<  64572001 |Disease (disorder)|  :  116676008 |Associated morphology (attribute)|  = <<  36191001 |Perforation (morphologic abnormality)|


Template Language

Link to misalignment reports:

Included complex cases:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lPFCU1Y_VlgedBMZ6o67FPzPv6JwGd9dfcSMU8IQs00/edit#gid=0

Excluded complex cases:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vY9VteUoxFQL0G_IcKteFm8tSgMCTOQCabxoZiEcSD0/edit#gid=0


Rules for generating descriptions:

  1. Apply General rules for generating descriptions for templates
  2. Apply Enhancements for the Template Language


Jira ticket:

QI-726 - Getting issue details... STATUS






6 Comments

  1. Hi Elaine Wooler, I have made some changes to the template, e.g. added status and version, clearly indicated self-grouped attributes of 'due to' and 'clinical course', aligned the cardinality for finding site in the template and template language. There are different results for the template compliance reports when 'due to' is included.  Please review them to see if the template needs to be revised further. 

    Cheers,

    Yong

  2. Hi Yongsheng Gao

    There should be some amendments I think:

    116680003 |Is a (attribute)|    <<  404684003 |Clinical finding (finding)|. There are a few perforations that are clinical findings.

    42752001 |Due to (attribute)| - <<  272379006 |Event (event)|  OR
     << 
     404684003 |Clinical finding (finding)|  OR
     << 
     71388002 |Procedure (procedure)|

    Also to address multiple morphologies for lateralised or combined disorders I think attribute cardinality needs to be changed to 1..*

    And addition of 

    Would that be correct?

    Cheers

    Elaine

    1. Hi Elaine Wooler,  we have excluded associations, e.g. 'due to' as complex cases. The size of the task is still too big after including the complex cases. Some templates for associations have been developed and placed under Association templates We can address them separately. Let's remove the attribute 'due to' from the template. You only need to address concepts that are in the report that excluded complex cases.

      I would suggest that you review those findings and determine if they should be diseases or finding. Then, we can decide if we should extend the template to clinical finding. 

      Cheers,

      Yong


  3. Hi Yongsheng Gao

    I've removed Due to and changed the Role group cardinality from 1..1 to 1..* to allow for lateralised disorders.  I haven't yet changed the template language.

    I've reviewed the findings there is only one 317701000119105 |Perforation of root canal space due to endodontic treatment (finding)| which I think should be a disorder so no need to extend the template to clinical finding.

    Cheers

    Elaine

    1. Thanks Elaine Wooler , it sounds good to address the single finding concept. The cardinality is updated in the template language and the template is approved.

  4. Thanks Yongsheng Gao that's great.  I spoke to Sarah about the root canal concept and have addressed this in the authoring platform which is going through review.