Stream: australia
Topic: Specialty codes in AUPD HCService and PracRole
John Carter (Mar 27 2018 at 20:31):
We've got a number of Healthcare Service and Practitioner Role specialty codes in our internal directory that don't map well to the available SNOMED specialty codes. At a first glance, we have 30-40 specialty codes in HC service and a handful in PracRole that look they will be useful to add to the Australian or even the International editions of SNOMED. I'm guessing that others will have the same experience with their legacy data. The current definition (Mar 2018 Connectathon) of the profiles has the binding strength for both these specialty codes set to Required. While we go through the process of requesting new SNOMED concepts, does it make sense to relax the binding strength so we can send a legacy value when needed? Or is there a better way?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 27 2018 at 20:45):
how long is the process likely to take?
Michael Lawley (Mar 27 2018 at 20:56):
Best case they could be in the AU version in a month (and April), but for International it's unlikely they'd get in until the Jan 2018 release. If they started in AU, then they could be promoted to International and would thus retain their SCTIDs
Grahame Grieve (Mar 27 2018 at 20:59):
Jan 2019?
Peter Jordan (Mar 27 2018 at 21:03):
@John Carter are these specialty codes used by Healthlink products & services in NZ as well?
Michael Lawley (Mar 27 2018 at 21:18):
um, 2019, yes :)
John Carter (Mar 27 2018 at 21:22):
@Peter Jordan Yes, we use our legacy specialties across both countries. Primarily to assist in searching for a provider or a practice.
John Carter (Mar 27 2018 at 23:42):
OK, another idea for a (partial) solution. Many of the concepts Im looking for and not finding in the existing value set (drawn from Healthcare service (qualifier value)) seem to be available under Physician service (procedure). By seem to be, I mean that these concepts have the right name and don't have any other attributes to suggest they mean anything different than what I want. Is it appropriate to expand the value set definition to include descendants of Physician service alongside the Healthcare service concepts? I'm not sure the semantic ramifications of mixing those two trees in this value set.
John Carter (Mar 28 2018 at 02:39):
@Michael Lawley thanks for weighing in. I've submitted a batch request through proper channels just now with the proposed new Healthcare Service qualifier concepts.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
