Page tree

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 19 Next »

Relevant Valuesets

Required value sets that are possibly in scope:

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-detectedissue-severity.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-allergy-clinical-status.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-allergy-verification-status.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-allergy-intolerance-type.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-allergy-intolerance-category.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-allergy-intolerance-criticality.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-reaction-event-severity.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-adverse-event-severity.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-adverse-event-outcome.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-condition-ver-status.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-condition-clinical.html

Update 28 September 2018 from Grahame Grieve

Additional candidates as discussed from the patient care space:

+ http://build.fhir.org/valueset-detectedissue-severity.html

+ http://build.fhir.org/valueset-request-priority.html

possible candidates out of other spaces:

genomics

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-sequence-type.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-orientation-type.html

 http://build.fhir.org/valueset-strand-type.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-quality-type.html

 http://build.fhir.org/valueset-repository-type.html

care planning

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-action-cardinality-behavior.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-action-precheck-behavior.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-action-required-behavior.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-action-selection-behavior.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-action-grouping-behavior.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-action-relationship-type.html

http://build.fhir.org/valueset-action-condition-kind.html



This confluence page concerns a list of valuesets that are new to the FHIR specification (ie did not already exist as older HL7 valuesets) and which therefore currently only exist as effectively lists of words values. The VA and SOLOR are interested in being able to substitute SNOMED CT coded valuesets in place, so a mapping is required. It is not clear whether the main benefit of having a SNOMED code is purely technical - it allows a single datatype for all values - or whether the link to SNOMED is also required to add or clarify the semantics of each member of the valueset.

There is another 'free' SNOMED CT codelist also in development for the International Patient Summary Specification, which is CDA R2 and FHIR incarnations. This free set would be used globally. Its a larger and more clinically focussed set. 

Design Principles for this valueset list:


Detected Issue Severity - 3 concepts, mapped 2 Oct 2018

HL7 ValueSuggested SNOMED TermDiscussion
High24484000 |Severe (severity modifier) (qualifier value)|

These values are inherited from V3. "High" does exist but in a different hierarchy - 75540009 |High (qualifier value)|

Severe does have a synonym of "High Grade"

Should we flag up this apparent inconsistency?

Moderate6736007 |Moderate (severity modifier) (qualifier value)|
Low255604002 |Mild (qualifier value)|

Allergy Clinical Status - 3 values

HL7 ValueSuggested SNOMED TermDiscussion
Active

JR suggests new sub-hierarchy for SCT containing disease activity to align with 370996005 |Patient condition resolved (finding)|

LB suggested use of << 394731006 |Problem statuses (qualifier value)| would need to add "Resolved". YG Notes that these are not in use and their use is not dictated by the MRCM.

DK suggested use of << 36692007 |Known (qualifier value)| again "Resolved" would be required.

Inactive

Resolved

Allergy Verification Status

<< 106230009 |Qualifier for certainty of diagnosis (qualifier value)| doesn't have refuted

Better << 410514004 |Finding context value (qualifier value)|

HL7 ValueSuggested SNOMED TermDiscussion
Unconfirmed410590009 |Known possible (qualifier value)|
Confirmed410605003 |Confirmed present (qualifier value)|
Refuted410594000 |Definitely NOT present (qualifier value)|Also considered 2667000 |Absent (qualifier value)| ? Doesn't really put over that a test was done and the absence of the allergy was proven.
Entered in ErrorNot Found723510000 |Entered in error (qualifier value)| is a 106232001 |Adjectival modifier (qualifier value)| ?

Allergy Intolerance Type

HL7 ValueSuggested SNOMED TermDiscussion
Allergy609328004 |Allergic disposition (finding)|
IntoleranceNot Found - expected for 20190131420134006 |Propensity to adverse reaction (finding)| ?

Allergy Intolerance Category

HL7 ValueSuggested SNOMED TermDiscussion
food

418471000|Propensity to adverse reactions to food (disorder)|

or 414285001|Food allergy (disorder)|


medication

419511003|Propensity to adverse reactions to drug (disorder)|

or 416098002|Drug allergy (disorder)|


environmentNot Found
biologicNot Found

Allergy Intolerance Criticality  2 concepts, mapped tentatively 18 Oct 2018

HL7 ValueSuggested SNOMED TermDiscussion
low risk723505004|Low risk (qualifier value)|

But very questionable whether (a) passing either of this pair 'adjectival modifier' codes is any more useful than passing the words 'low' and 'high;

and (b) the wisdom and clinical safety of passing a coded clinical statement stating 'high risk' that does not also explicitly include 'of what?'.

Would it be better/safer to pass as new clinical finding codes along the lines of 'high risk of adverse reaction' ?

Actually, the exact meaning of the original valueset is in fact not to grade the likelihood of an adverse event but rather of whether, should an adverse event occur,it is likely to be clinically significant one. A high probability of only trivial reactions would be graded 'low risk'. So passing only 'low risk' may be especially clinically rather ambiguous.

high risk723509005|High risk (qualifier value)|

Adverse Event Severity - 3 concepts, mapped 2 Oct 2018

Reaction Event Severity - 3 concepts, mapped 2 Oct 2018

HL7 ValueSuggested SNOMED TermDiscussion
Severe24484000 |Severe (severity modifier) (qualifier value)|
Moderate6736007 |Moderate (severity modifier) (qualifier value)|
Mild255604002 |Mild (qualifier value)|

Adverse Event Outcome

HL7 ValueSuggested SNOMED TermDiscussion
resolved413322009|Problem resolved (finding)|
recoveringNot Found
ongoingNot Found303350001|Ongoing episode (qualifier value)| exists, but to be consistent with semantic category of maps proposed for other valueset members, need a finding.
resolvedWithSequelaeNot Found413322009|Problem resolved (finding)| is only part of the way there.
Also 370996005|Patient condition resolved (finding)|
fatal419099009|Dead (finding)|399166001|Fatal (qualifier value)| is a severity..
unknownNot Found

Condition.VerificationStatus

HL7 ValueSuggested SNOMED TermDiscussion
Unconfirmed410590009 |Known possible (qualifier value)|
Provisional410592001|Probably present (qualifier value)|
Differential

410590009|Known possible (qualifier value)|

OR 415684004|Suspected (qualifier value)|

'known possible' is not quite the same as differential...
Confirmed410605003 |Confirmed present (qualifier value)|
Refuted410594000 |Definitely NOT present (qualifier value)|
Entered In ErrorNot Found

Condition.ClinicalStatus

HL7 ValueSuggested SNOMED TermDiscussion
ActiveNot Found

55561003|Active (qualifier value)| would be undesirable to use. Its just a code for the word as an adjective : having a SNOMED code would add zero value over the original string, and only marginally more than the more obviously ludicrous but entirely possible SNOMED CT encoding as the expression:

422097006|Upper case Roman letter A (qualifier value)|
+ 257984003|Lower case Roman letter c (qualifier value)|
+ 257998006|Lower case Roman letter t (qualifier value)|
+ 257989008|Lower case Roman letter i (qualifier value)|
+ 258000009|Lower case Roman letter v (qualifier value)|
+ 257985002|Lower case Roman letter e (qualifier value)|

..RecurrenceNot Found263853000|Recurrent episode (qualifier value)| is in right neck of woods, as a member of the Episodicities valueset, but other members of the HL7 valueset cross over into other aspects of disease phase rather than episodicity, so if a guiding map design principle were to be that all members of the valueset should at least be from the same SCT semantic category, then we'd need Findings for all of the values.
..RelapseNot Found303359000|Relapse episode (qualifier value)|
or 263855007|Relapse phase (qualifier value)|
InactiveNot Found73425007|Inactive (qualifier value)| would be undesirable to use as its just a code for the word and so having a SNOMED code adds zero value over the original string
..RemissionNot Found277022003|Remission phase (qualifier value)|
..ResolvedNot Found723506003|Resolved (qualifier value)| would be undesirable to use as its just a code for the word : having a SNOMED code adds zero value over the original string


Outstanding questions

Which descriptions will the free set include - None, FSN, PT (in what languages?)

What if SNOMED Concepts split into more expressive versions ie HL7 code would then map to multiple SNOMED CT codes.

  • No labels