Deploying Orderables within SNOMED CT

Pragmatically speaking, deployment of an observables ontology for lab medicine should include order panels since they are common organizing features encountered in the clinical realm.  Struggling with the question of how to model them in SNOMED CT, it occurs to me that they represent a Situation with explicit context in that they represent proposed actions rather than reports of results.  Carrying this thought forward, I would observe that we have an implicit 'soft context' for Observable entities as we have defined them, to wit:

Soft context for observable entities:

Associated procedure: Observable entity

Procedure context: Done

Temporal context: Current or past
Subject relationship context: Patient

Orderables and panel codes, on the other hand, could be conceptualized as 

ISA Procedure with explicit context
Associated procedure: Observable entity
Procedure context: To be done
Temporal context: Future
Subject relationship context: Patient

These orderable concepts should have 'Component' relationships to the set of observables that are actually accomplished by executing the order:

{24323-8 Comprehensive metabolic panel =

ISA Procedure with explicit context(Orderable)
Associated procedure: Clinical chemistry observable entity
Procedure context: To be done
Temporal context: Future
Subject relationship context: Patient

Component:2345-7 Glucose in serum or plasma

Component: 3094-0 Urea nitrogen in serum or plasma...etc}

Does that make sense relative to the SNOMED CT concept model?

Jim

Could this not apply to any orderable whether panel or single item?  A means of connecting orderable and result is certainly appealing.

Sarah.

I assume that those will not be in the international release as panels tend to vary between organisations.

The situation concept model includes Observables in the range of | Procedure context | but | Component | is only allowed for | Procedure | and | Observable entity |.

The Associated procedure: Clinical chemistry observable entity seem to add little to the definition. Why not like this (if the small issue of mixing code syntaxes can be solved):

24323-8 | Comprehensive metabolic panel |
===
|  Procedure with explicit context | : 
{ 
  | Associated procedure | =  2345-7 | Glucose in serum or plasma |,
  | Procedure context | = | Requested (qualifier value) |
}, 
{
  | Associated procedure | =  3094-0 | Urea nitrogen in serum or plasma |,
  | Procedure context | = | Requested (qualifier value) |
}, ... etc...

This would provide a SNOMED CT definition of the contents of the panel.

However, there is no formal definition of the "metabolicness" of the panel and thus you would not be able to query for all panels concerning metabolism (if that is at all possible).

Thus, adding a grouper-like Observable:

24323-8 | Comprehensive metabolic panel |
<<<
|Observable|:
 |Characterizes|=|Metabolism| 

with a GCI could provide this information.

/Daniel