Stream: terminology
Topic: US code systems
Grahame Grieve (Jul 13 2016 at 03:03):
GF#9047 requests new code systems and identifiers. AMA and NUCC specialty codes are code systems, and the rest are identifier systems, yes?
Rob Hausam (Jul 13 2016 at 04:23):
Yes, that's right.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 13 2016 at 04:24):
do you know anything about them? source? copyright?
Grahame Grieve (Jul 13 2016 at 04:24):
and I'm not sure how to register state identifiers...?
Rob Hausam (Jul 13 2016 at 04:44):
Hmm. Good questions. I just Googled for the AMA specialty codes and was able to download a PDF.
http://www.mmslists.com/definitionspdf/AMA%20Specialty%20Codes.pdf
I didn't really know anything about them before.
I also don't know much about NUCC codes, although I've heard of them frequently - there's info here:
http://www.nucc.org/index.php/code-sets-mainmenu-41/provider-taxonomy-mainmenu-40
Regarding state licensing identifiers, I'm not sure how would be best to approach that - it would require some investigation.
Eric Haas (Jul 14 2016 at 17:13):
I am interested in them as well for Argonaut and DAF. for state Identifiers do you mean USPS two letter codes - they are "public- domain" I researched this but never found a copyright associated with them I just attributed them to the US postal service.
Eric Haas (Jul 14 2016 at 17:15):
I'll need to get the NUCC codes copyright stuff for DAF
Grahame Grieve (Jul 14 2016 at 19:34):
I presumed it meant state identifiers for provider, not codes for state - we've canned USPS
Eric Haas (Jul 14 2016 at 21:03):
canned?
Eric Haas (Jul 14 2016 at 21:07):
I'm not sure what you mean by state id for provider's is this a USRealm question or and country?
Grahame Grieve (Jul 14 2016 at 21:08):
it's in the bank, I think that would be the equivalent statement in US
Grahame Grieve (Jul 14 2016 at 21:08):
yes this is a US realm question
Eric Haas (Jul 14 2016 at 21:08):
canned = fired or tossed out
Eric Haas (Jul 14 2016 at 21:11):
nationally there is an NPI and each state has an identifier for things like the medicaid provider id. Rob can speak to whether Utah has another identifier besides a state license no.
Eric Haas (Jul 14 2016 at 21:11):
how come you are stuck with the US Realm value set work?
Grahame Grieve (Jul 14 2016 at 21:12):
wel, you know the answer to that.... there's no still no functional US realm committee....
Eric Haas (Jul 14 2016 at 21:12):
yes it was a leading question
Robert McClure (Jul 15 2016 at 00:00):
@Rob Hausam I'm not sure what you all are doing with all this but please don't run off and grab random lists of codes of the interweb and stick them into FHIR. If you really think that is an acceptable approach we may need to re-think how the FHIR terminology service hosting process can occur under the HL7 banner.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 00:00):
what are you talking about?
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 00:02):
either you are saying: we shouldn't go off and try and take editorial control of codes other people use (which is a null statement) or you are saying that we should refuse to let people use codes unless we approve them first (which is a silly thing to say)
Robert McClure (Jul 15 2016 at 00:03):
As for NUCC, NLM is currently working with NUCC (AMA is the hosting entity) to clarify use (for VSAC.) There is a very resonable disclaimer need for that one so it's pretty straight forward.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 00:04):
well, we've been asked to define the URL to use for the system for NUCC codes. Have you any suggestion?
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 00:04):
I think NUCC is a family of code systems, not a single one?
Robert McClure (Jul 15 2016 at 00:09):
I'm saying that we should not insert an unknown code system into FHIR simply because someone can find it on google. Are you saying that the pdf Rob found has provenance and is accurate?
Robert McClure (Jul 15 2016 at 00:10):
I am not saying you can control what people put in FHIR instances. I am saying that you should not host unknown files as code systems that you promote for use.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 00:11):
I'm unclear about what 'insert' means for you. There's 3 different things we do:
- define and manage a code system
- host as a code system resource something that someone else defines (for implementer convenience)
- define how to refer to a code system, but don't host the content
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 00:12):
I think we're talking about the 3rd prospect here, not the 2nd. And definitely not the first
Robert McClure (Jul 15 2016 at 00:12):
I assume this pdf is item two?
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 00:12):
though there's probably a case for 2(a) - publish it somewhere, but not hosted by HL7
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 00:12):
I tnought it was just helping us to option 3 correctly.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 00:13):
at least, that's how I understood Rob
Robert McClure (Jul 15 2016 at 00:13):
I'd not do #2 unless we can vouch for it. let someone lese take that on assuming they can determine it's real
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 00:14):
yeah, we don't do 2 much - about 10 code systems. And even when we do, we probably really want 2(a) not 2
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 00:14):
back later
Robert McClure (Jul 15 2016 at 00:14):
as for #3, I take that to mean again, you are vetting that the thing you are defining a uri for is actually a code system. You are giving it meaning by doing the uri
Robert McClure (Jul 15 2016 at 00:15):
so I'd vet that pdf first. I've asked my AMA contact about it so let's see what she says
Rob Hausam (Jul 15 2016 at 00:15):
that's how I understood myself, too :)
@Robert McClure I was passing along information in response to @Grahame Grieve 's questions "do you know anything about them? source? copyright?"
Robert McClure (Jul 15 2016 at 00:16):
Yes, NUCC makes available is multiple code systems. "NUCC" is NOT a code system, its an organizational entity
Robert McClure (Jul 15 2016 at 00:19):
As for http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=9047, Using google to start the process is fine, but the comments went directly to "OK< that's it" and you need to help us be more controlled then that. If we want AMA speciality codes guess what, we need to ask the AMA
Rob Hausam (Jul 15 2016 at 00:22):
not sure where you are getting the "OK< that's it" bit - I don't see that in the discussion
I assume that Grahame knows about copyright, licensing, etc., without me having to remind him
Robert McClure (Jul 15 2016 at 01:08):
Here is what I mean - Don't provide randomly googled pdf's as support for access and meaning of a code system. We need to stop doing that sort of thing.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 01:14):
here? where? that task? that's just a request. We're trying to do the analysis, though maybe it would be a good idea for us to have some formality about what the process should be. If you're on the SD list, you will have seen some of my analysis about Medicaid numbers (which so far comes to - this is a big mess). Medicare seemed like an open and shut case, so I aded that. I haven't added any of the rest, and I'm probably only going to do analysis on DEA number. The others.... I don't even know what they are
Robert McClure (Jul 15 2016 at 16:50):
I understand this is more problematic then those of us doing the actual work feel it should be. Seems everyone has iognored managing the work and now it's all on us now, right? Sux actually ;-) But yes, we need a process so we can be sure it was done well enough and then move on to the next item. I'm hoping Rob H. can work with the rest of the vocab team to define that.
Rob Hausam (Jul 15 2016 at 16:57):
That's certainly the intent.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 20:29):
who would manage the work but vocab? And you can only do so much at a time... and nor can you boil the ocean.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 15 2016 at 20:29):
so I don't feel bad about where we are, it's just that there remains work to do to get interop
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
