Stream: terminology
Topic: NUCC inactive codes.
Eric Haas (Nov 19 2020 at 21:08):
I got this question on NUCC and since there is a lot issues around using NUCC in IGs, I wanted to find out the general road map for NUCC before answering it.
Reece Adamson said:
Eric Haas is it intentional that inactive codes are included in the provider speciality valueset e.g.
103GC0700X? I see inactive codes in the FHIR CodeSystem representation on GitHub FHIR/Pacages. I don't have an opinion on whether or not they should be included, just looking for clarification if that was the intent.
Eric Haas (Nov 19 2020 at 21:09):
@Robert McClure @Gay Dolin
Gay Dolin (Nov 19 2020 at 21:16):
Maybe we should reach out to Gail Kocher (Gail.Kocher@bcbsa.com) who is a chair on the NUCC committee and the one advising on proper use of NUCC code (for Specialty only) and not role. There could be a similar use case to clinical codes where one still wants to look for expired codes and ICD9 (for example) for historical data -- but I don't know. @Gail Kocher
Robert McClure (Dec 01 2020 at 01:27):
I doubt Gail needs to jump into this since she has stated how she wants HL7 to deal with this many times. The NUCC Provider taxonomy (it is not just NUCC, they have a number of code systems - we just don't use the others) was supposedly updated by @Grahame Grieve and I end of September using content Gail provided. I'm pretty sure that updated code system resource did not include the inactive concepts, although it certainly could have and perhaps should at some point because including inactive concepts in a code system is a fine thing to do. Perhaps Graham can tell us where the updated code system is.
As for including inactive codes in a value set, again, it certainly can happen. We do it all the time when the value set is used for queries to identify patient populations where older data may have inactive concepts. Think quality measures. As for the example cited - maybe there is a reason they need to be there - @Eric Haas , who defined the value set?
Eric Haas (Dec 01 2020 at 02:02):
We did in US Core here https://www.hl7.org/fhir/us/core/ValueSet-us-core-provider-specialty.html#logical-definition-cld
Robert McClure (Dec 01 2020 at 02:34):
Ah yes, the enumerated static list . We need to update that CLD to align with the code system based on the representation Graham and I created. But then we'd need to be able to see that and right now I don't know how to do that since it's not rendered in the build. I think we can put it into THO as a hosted external code system. @Ted Klein ?
Ted Klein (Dec 01 2020 at 03:07):
Such hosted external code systems have agreements, conditions, and stipulations all worked out by HTA (e.g. SNODENT) and then someone from HTA puts in the UTG request to add it. No problem at all to add it, just the other work needs doing first.
Grahame Grieve (Dec 02 2020 at 03:54):
the master code system definition is here: https://github.com/FHIR/packages/blob/master/packages/fhir.tx.support.r4/package/CodeSystem-nucc-provider-taxonomy.json.
@Robert McClure if it does contain inactive codes, and we should remove them, either make a PR doing that, or tell me which codes I should remove.
Grahame Grieve (Dec 02 2020 at 03:55):
@Ted Klein I believe we agreed that UTG should only contain a stub code system for NUCC
Grahame Grieve (Dec 02 2020 at 03:56):
@Eric Haas because of the way we redefined the code system, there are no longer any abstract codes. you should remove the abstract= false filter
Robert McClure (Dec 02 2020 at 13:00):
@Grahame Grieve Regarding inactive codes, honestly I'm not sure. Next week when I get back home, I'll look at the file to identify inactives. I'm tending to think we should keep them but mark the concept as inactive. As for UTG, I'm hoping you mean THO as there should not be a UTG process, other than creating the content for THO. But given that we have approval to display the codes, doesn't it make sense to represent the code system as complete?
Grahame Grieve (Dec 02 2020 at 20:23):
yes I mean THO. I believe we agreed that the master wouldn't be in THO - not published formally by HL7. I don't mind if it is. The code system we prepared is defined as complete
Ted Klein (Dec 03 2020 at 18:15):
@Grahame Grieve yes that is correct. AFAIK what we have in the ci build is only a stub: https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/UTG/CodeSystem-v3-nuccProviderCodes.html
Grahame Grieve (Dec 03 2020 at 20:21):
ok. so THO just contains a stub, and the master is the github reference above. And it may contain inactive codes - Rob is going to review
Robert McClure (Dec 07 2020 at 18:50):
The git repository for the new NUCC does not contain any inactive codes. For now I'd say that is fine. We can add them in if there is a request to do so. The inactive codes are:
Code Grouping Classification Specialization
103GC0700X Behavioral Health & Social Service Providers Clinical Neuropsychologist Clinical
103TE1000X Behavioral Health & Social Service Providers Psychologist Educational
103TM1700X Behavioral Health & Social Service Providers Psychologist Men & Masculinity
103TP2700X Behavioral Health & Social Service Providers Psychologist Psychotherapy
103TW0100X Behavioral Health & Social Service Providers Psychologist Women
1835G0000X Pharmacy Service Providers Pharmacist General Practice
213EG0000X Podiatric Medicine & Surgery Service Providers Podiatrist General Practice
2865C1500X Hospitals Military Hospital Community Health
287300000X Hospitals Christian Science Sanitorium
317400000X Nursing & Custodial Care Facilities Christian Science Facility
Eric Haas (Dec 10 2020 at 15:41):
FYI @Reece Adamson
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
