Jeremy
Problems of quickly sticking ones head over the parapit :-)
This might be my last contribution as off on holiday ... sorry not
ignoring you.
> > classifications are conceptually non-overlapping coding schemes for
> > analysis of population based data.
>
> One purpose of classifying terms is certainly to help analyse population
> data. This is not the only reason you might want to classify, however.
> In the context of decision support, for example, you need classification
> to tell you that:
snip
Agree bad definition ..... some classifications can used for DSS and
structuring records.
>
> Another reason why you need to classify terms is in order to provide
> some means of guiding users to the correct term.
Sorry disagree that relates to the structure of the coding scheme.
> > Nomenclatures/Thesuarsus are for recording and retrieving data at a patient level.
>
> I have grave doubts about these definitions of 'classifications' and 'nomenclatures'.
I agree you could debate them but I think 'grave' is strong .... I am
using standard Medical Informatics terms in accepted ways the
definition may be weak but not away from normal understanding.
> A nomenclature is any system of naming or labelling of things.
> A thesaurus, typically, is a systematic cross-referencing of terms in
> different nomenclatures based on their semantic similarity.
Maybe in English but not in Medical Informatics ... pedantic
> A classification is a system by which elements of a nomenclature are
> organised by class or type.
Agree
> It is, therefore, impossible to have a classification unless you are
> also a nomenclature (you have to have something to classify). It is
> possible to be a nomenclature without having any classification, in
> which case you are a dictionary. A nomenclature which has been
> classified is still a nomenclature.
Very pedantic ..... choose some new terms if you wish but the issue
is that there are three types of coding scheme for medical record
systems:-
Type 1 - natural language (free text)
Type 2 - used for saying anything you want to in natural terms as
long as you want to electronic retrieve the information
Type 3 - used to analyse/manipulate information from type 2 coding
Seem to remeber a paper by Rossi Mori taking this further ....
Rossi-Mori,A; Galeazzi,E; Gangemi,A; Pisanelli,DM; Thornton,AM (1991):
Semantic standards for the representation of medical records. Med.
Decis. Making. 11(4, Suppl, Oct-Dec), S76-S80.
.... I think .... at home and paper at work.
> > Read is one of only two nomenclatures in the world; the other being Snomed.
>
> Clearly wrong (see above). There are more than 300 different nomenclatures
> in the field of medicine alone.
Definitions .... stick to what I said as Type 2
> > Classifications should be mapped to Nomenclatures.
>
> What does this mean?
Hope this is clearer
> > Read is to code things at a detail required by the clinician.
> > It does not classify as there is often conceptual overlap. You need mapped
> > classification for this purpose.
>
> In what way does it 'not classify' ? It has a hierarchical arrangement of
> codes, according to class, does it not ?
Yes but is really aimed at input ..... ie. negation is within the
hierachy and similar concepts are in different hierachies (ie back
pain, cystitis, OM etc)
> It uses this hierarchy explicitly to inherit rules of constraint.
Not sure it does
> What it doesn't do is classify things according
> to how an epidemiologist might expect them to be classified. In other words,
> the particular choice of classes used is for a different purpose than,
> for example, ICD.
Also doesn't work well for queries, DSS and record structuring.
> > All the crap in the press is irrelvant to the fact we need a working
> > version of Read 3.1. We haven't got one yet.
>
> What criteria would you put forward to determine whether you *had* got
> a working version of READ 3.1 ? How would you test whether those criteria
> had been met ?
Agree these are required ..... not been involved myself ..... ideas
to Jon Rogers as Chair of GP SWG.
Ian
Dr Ian Purves (Director)
Sowerby Unit for Primary Care Informatics
University of Newcastle, UK
Phone: +44 (0)191 222 7884
Fax: +44 (0)191 222 6043
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~nphcare/Sowerby//ian.html
PGP Key on Web or finger [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|