The one that appears from our LSP: Fujitsu.
Jonathan
On 11 Oct 2007, at 12:08, Ian Bailey wrote:
> Jonathan
>
> Which catalogue of investigations? National (England) or Southern?
>
>
> Ian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IT working group of the Association of Clinical Biochemists
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Kay
> Sent: 11 October 2007 12:01
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Coding of investigations
>
> We did a vast amount of work on this in the Clinical Terms Project
> and got
> full sign-off from all the professional bodies.The "CT" of SNOMED-
> CT is of
> course a reference to the products of the Clinical Terms Project.
>
> I work in a laboratory in the Southern Cluster, and don't know why the
> catalogue of investigations is not based on SNOMED-CT.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> On 11 Oct 2007, at 10:12, Paul Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Re LOINC adoption in US vs READ codes: I can understand why, it is
>> more logical/comprehensive/systematic...you name it...however
>> LOINC is
>> not perfect at all: eg it is not object oriented at present. But at
>> risk of misrepresenting history, I understood that one of the
>> influences the European/UK views brought to the SNOMED collaboration
>> was the object orientation that SNOMED CT adopted. A similar
>> influence
>> may come about with more collaboration in this area....
>>
>> I'll check out OpenEHR
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: IT working group of the Association of Clinical Biochemists
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Jones [Pathology]
>> Sent: 11 October 2007 09:58
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Conversion units
>>
>> Just a little clarification - my understanding was that the Read
>> codes
>> for tests were offered to SNOMED but the US insisted in going with
>> LOINC and hence initially isolating Pathology.
>>
>> In the end there will be one global code scheme - complex I know but
>> necessary. OpenEHR is worth a view as it's based on open architecture
>> and is object orientated. Problems with early code systems were that
>> they were too rigid and lacked the ability to deal with the rapidly
>> changing world. It's noteworthy that SNOMED is beginning to emerge
>> into the new world of open standards - see also Microsofts open
>> source
>> moves with the common user interface.
>>
>> In the new world it pays more to collaborate than compete - sadly we
>> are still paying the price for previously mis-guided attempts to
>> corner the market in codes.
>>
>> As to who's in charge of UK pathology coding - I'd love to find out.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> Dr Rick Jones
>> Assoc Clin Director, Yorks and Humber SHA NPfIT Sen Lect, Yorkshire
>> Centre Health Informatics, Univ of Leeds [log in to unmask]
>> http://www.ychi.leeds.ac.uk <http://www.ychi.leeds.ac.uk/>
>> http://elipse.redirectme.net <http://elipse.redirectme.net/>
>> http://www.pathology.leedsth.nhs.uk <http://
>> www.pathology.leedsth.nhs.uk/>
>> 0113 343 4961
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: IT working group of the Association of Clinical Biochemists on
>> behalf of Paul Schmidt
>> Sent: Thu 11/10/2007 09:40
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Conversion units
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Arden,
>>
>> I think this call for a collaborative effort is very commendable.
>> There is
>> just one problem with it: the US have decided a few years ago that
>> they are adopting the LOINC database for the names/codes of
>> laboratory
>> tests and other clinical observations, and whoever in the UK is in
>> charge of these things seem to view it with antipathy or at least
>> indifference. As I understand it there is collaboration with
>> SNOMED CT
>> so that the domains will be complementary. Several other countries in
>> Europe has also agreed to adopt the standard.
>>
>> http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/49/4/624
>>
>> Nobody is saying it is yet the complete package, but it is a damn
>> sight more comprehensive and systematic with potential for
>> improvement
>> (eg in describing ordering panels) than anything else I have seen.
>> The
>> issue of developing a single framework for standard units of
>> measurement is one which should also tie in to that (and in the US I
>> guess it does??).
>>
>> For my part I have never understood why we in the UK cannot see the
>> sense of joining the collaborative and influencing the changes one
>> might want to see from the UK perspective, just like the situation
>> was
>> with READ codes (UK) and SNOMED RT (US). Then the NHS and College of
>> American Pathologists joined hands and SNOMED CT hasn't looked back
>> since. Instead there is constantly new little initiatives here in the
>> UK bubbling up under various organizations uncluding the Southern
>> cluster in NPfIT which seems keeps re-inventing the wheel (yawn!)
>>
>> The point I am making is: if the UK is not even part of the broader
>> collaborative of agreeing names and codes for test results, then the
>> issue of agreement on SI units is almost moot, as there is
>> unlikely to
>> be any universal exhange standard.
>>
>> I would be very interested if someone could enlighten me why this is
>> happening (or not happening!)
>>
>> Paul Schmidt
>>
>> Queen Alexandra Hospital
>> Portmsouth UK
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: IT working group of the Association of Clinical Biochemists
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A. Forrey
>> Sent: 10 October 2007 18:24
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Conversion units - PMIP[MESSAGE NOT SCANNED]
>>
>> I would like to urge that the UK clinical laboratorians dvelop a
>> collaborative effort with those in the US with respect to the common
>> units and their representations (whether in messages or in data
>> structures such as the EHR). The IFCC/IUPAC SI represerntations are
>> those recommended both by national and international groups. The
>> educational challenge for the health professional (useers and
>> producers of measurments/
>> observations)
>> has been a majo one over the 16 years that work of the US with the
>> EU CEN TC 251 groups has been pursued. Much more could and should be
>> done collbaoraively and synergistically. AACC LISMID Chair Al Jekelis
>> is a key contact and he is working with LISMID memeber pam Banning on
>> a terminology program for the AACC 2008 Annual meeting in July in
>> Washington DC. There is still time to develop a joint effort with ACB
>> to address this specific challenge and have useful information by the
>> time of that presentation. I invite those interested to contact these
>> individuals on this subject.
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Arden W. Forrey PhD
>> Dept of Restorative Dentistry
>> University of Washington School of Dentistry
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Jonathan Kay wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 Oct 2007, at 10:40, Gethin Roberts wrote:
>>>> In Wales we are currently working towards procurement of an
>>>> "integrated"
>>>> LIMS. OJEU ? Feb 2008.
>>>> I'm heading a project to standardize biochemistry test names,
>>>> codes,
>>>> units and (where possible!) reference intervals.
>>>
>>> I think the key question is whether that is going to give
>>> transferable results...
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10 Oct 2007, at 10:40, Gethin Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>> In Wales we are currently working towards procurement of an
>>>> "integrated"
>>>> LIMS. OJEU ? Feb 2008.
>>>> I'm heading a project to standardize biochemistry test names,
>>>> codes,
>>>> units and (where possible!) reference intervals. I've also
>>>> represented Wales on Jonathan Berg's W Midlands Biochemistry
>>>> Harmonisation group.
>>>> Looking at the spreadsheet I can see how this can easily develop
>>>> into a pig's breakfast!
>>>> We hope to proceed in Wales by setting up a code list for tests
>>>> with
>>>> agreed names and (SI) units. Any translation necessary for the IHR
>>>> and/or clinical portal in Wales would occur further down the line.
>>>> Although we hope to agree some consensus reference ranges the
>>>> reality is that most results transmitted will (hopefully) have a
>>>> standard code and unit but different ref ranges depending on lab.
>>>> I would be grateful for any advice on how likely this approach
>>>> is to
>>>> succeed and any other comment on the most effective way forward.
>>>>
>>>> Gethin Roberts
>>>> Consultant Clinical Biochemist
>>>> Bronglais Hospital
>>>> Aberystwyth
>>>> 01970 635784
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: IT working group of the Association of Clinical Biochemists
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Kay
>>>> Sent: 10 October 2007 08:32
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Conversion units - PMIP[MESSAGE NOT SCANNED]
>>>>
>>>> I don't think its safe for receiving systems to change any
>>>> components of reports unless it is known that results between the
>>>> different methods are transferable.
>>>>
>>>> Some minor conversions of units are probably OK (eg mmol to
>>>> micromol)
>>>> and should be based on systems sending well formed ISO units (IFCC/
>>>> IUPAC to us), and be limited to those cases.
>>>>
>>>> If this approach isn't taken it is likely that eg enzyme results
>>>> from different laboratories will be merged when the results are not
>>>> transferable. (Because system implementers will look at the units
>>>> and see they are the same... )
>>>>
>>>> NB: This is a criticism of UK laboratories, not information system
>>>> or projects.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>> On 9 Oct 2007, at 21:23, Richard Jones [Pathology] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> TPP (and I assume other GP suppliers) are now receiving data from
>>>>> multiple labs with a mixed range of units. Though they store the
>>>>> original unit when they display tables or graphs they have a need
>>>>> to convert to a common base unit.
>>>>>
>>>>> They have set up the following conversions. I would be grateful if
>>>>> anyone with a little time could check these for me and comment on
>>>>> whether you think they are valid. see spreadsheet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incidentally they have also noticed a number of labs sending
>>>>> messages with 'inappropriate' units and other message content. I
>>>>> have contacted CfH (at a very high level) to try to get their help
>>>>> desk to resolve it without any reply - clearly the potential
>>>>> safety
>>>>> issue is not recognised / understood.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you think we should proceed?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have attached an anonymised list (at least only with lab ID
>>>>> codes). Should I share the uncoded version?
>>>>>
>>>>> My feeling is that CfH should be picking this up and following
>>>>> through to the labs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rick
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr Rick Jones
>>>>> Assoc Clin Director, Yorks and Humber SHA NPfIT Sen Lect,
>>>>> Yorkshire
>>>>> Centre Health Informatics, Univ of Leeds [log in to unmask]
>>>>> http://www.ychi.leeds.ac.uk <http://www.ychi.leeds.ac.uk/>
>> <http://www.ychi.leeds.ac.uk/>
>>>>> http://elipse.redirectme.net <http://elipse.redirectme.net/>
>> <http://elipse.redirectme.net/>
>>>>> http://www.pathology.leedsth.nhs.uk
>> <http://www.pathology.leedsth.nhs.uk/> <http://
>>>>> www.pathology.leedsth.nhs.uk/>
>>>>> 0113 343 4961
>>>>>
>>>>> <Anonymous Copy of Invalid Units.xls> <Copy of Invalid Units.xls>
>>>> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or
>>>> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
>>>> confidential, or subject to copyright. If you are not the intended
>>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying
>>>> or distribution of this message, or any associated files, is
>>>> strictly prohibited. It you have received this message in error,
>>>> please notify us immediately by replying to the message, and delete
>>>> it from your computer. Messages sent to and from the Trust may be
>>>> monitored. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the
>>>> author and do not necessarily represent those of the Trust.
>>>> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or
>>>> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
>>>> confidential,
>> or
>>>> subject to copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, you
>>>> are
>> hereby
>>>> notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this
>>>> message,
>>
>>>> or any associated files, is strictly prohibited. It you have
>>>> received
>> this
>>>> message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
>> message,
>>>> and delete it from your computer. Messages sent to and from the
>>>> Trust may
>>
>>>> be monitored. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of
>>>> the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Trust.
>>
>> __________ NOD32 2582 (20071009) Information __________
>>
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>> http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
>>
>> __________ NOD32 2586 (20071011) Information __________
>>
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>> http://www.eset.com
> LEGAL DISCLAIMER
>
> This electronic message is from Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust and it
> may contain confidential and privileged information. If
> you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying,
> retransmission, distribution, dissemination, action taken or
> omitted to be taken in reliance upon this email is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email
> in error, please accept our apologies and notify the sender.
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
> sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority
> to be the views of Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust.
|