Page tree

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

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Next »


Summary

See attached briefing note.


Relevant documents

No files shared here yet.


Actions: 

Date

Requested action

Requester(s)

Response required by:

Comments

11 December 2018Review briefing note and respond
  • Camilla Wiberg Danielsen Please review the briefing note regarding Observables modelling (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
  • Daniel Karlsson - Not applicable.
  • Sheree Hemingway Please review the briefing note regarding Observables modelling (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
  • Elze de Groot Please review the briefing note regarding Observables modelling (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
  • Karina Revirol Please review the briefing note regarding Observables modelling (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you. 
  • Linda Parisien Please review the briefing note regarding Observables modelling (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
  • Matt Cordell Please review the briefing note regarding Observables modelling (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
  • Olivier Bodenreider Please review the briefing note regarding Observables modelling (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
  • Jostein Ven Please review the briefing note regarding Observables modelling (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
  • Theresa Barry Please review the briefing note regarding Observables modelling (on this page) and provide a response by   Thank you.
Please post your final responses in the Country response table below. Discussion comments can be made as comments.

2018-12-11 - CMAG Meeting

Country response 

CountryDateResponse
Australia

 

I am not aware of any substantial implementations using the SNOMED CT observable content. Pathology has been dominated by LOINC. Other areas of healthcare may have adopted SNOMED CT observables, but we have limited transparency of this and usage. I'd expect whatever decision would be handled as general change management.

As for impacts. The "disruptive approach" of creating new concepts is the safest as implementers and message recipients can easily identify a change has occurred. Though I appreciate a pragmatic approach may be desirable, if taken we would most like generate a list of affected concepts and request all implementations check for the usage of these concepts.






















Member countries without a CMAG rep


CMAG response

DateCMAG ResponseNext steps










Final outcome: 

Date: 


  • No labels