Perforation of [body structure] (disorder) - v1.0
Status | Ready for implementation |
|---|---|
Version | 1.0 |
Descriptions:
Term | description type | Language/acceptability | Language/acceptability | Case significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
[course] [periods of life] [morphology] of [body structure] caused by [agent] due to [fin/proc] (disorder) | FSN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
[course] [periods of life] [morphology] of [body structure] caused by [agent] due to [fin/proc] | SYN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
Concept model:
Attribute cardinality | Attribute | Value | Role group cardinality |
|---|---|---|---|
1..1 | N/A | ||
0..1 | 0..1 | ||
1..1 |
| 1..* @rolegroup | |
0..1 | |||
0..1 | |||
0..1 | |||
0..1 | OR OR |
Definition status:
Applies to
<< 64572001 |Disease (disorder)| : 116676008 |Associated morphology (attribute)| = << 36191001 |Perforation (morphologic abnormality)|
Template Language
Link to misalignment reports:
Included complex cases:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lPFCU1Y_VlgedBMZ6o67FPzPv6JwGd9dfcSMU8IQs00/edit#gid=0
Excluded complex cases:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vY9VteUoxFQL0G_IcKteFm8tSgMCTOQCabxoZiEcSD0/edit#gid=0
Rules for generating descriptions:
Jira ticket:
https://projects.jira.snomed.org/browse/QI-726
Comments
Hi @Yongsheng Gao
There should be some amendments I think:
116680003 |Is a (attribute)| << 404684003 |Clinical finding (finding)|. There are a few perforations that are clinical findings.
42752001 |Due to (attribute)| - << 272379006 |Event (event)| OR
<< 404684003 |Clinical finding (finding)| OR
<< 71388002 |Procedure (procedure)|
Also to address multiple morphologies for lateralised or combined disorders I think attribute cardinality needs to be changed to 1..*
And addition of
Would that be correct?
Cheers
Elaine
Hi @Elaine Wooler, we have excluded associations, e.g. 'due to' as complex cases. The size of the task is still too big after including the complex cases. Some templates for associations have been developed and placed under Association templates We can address them separately. Let's remove the attribute 'due to' from the template. You only need to address concepts that are in the report that excluded complex cases.
I would suggest that you review those findings and determine if they should be diseases or finding. Then, we can decide if we should extend the template to clinical finding.
Cheers,
Yong
Hi @Yongsheng Gao
I've removed Due to and changed the Role group cardinality from 1..1 to 1..* to allow for lateralised disorders. I haven't yet changed the template language.
I've reviewed the findings there is only one 317701000119105 |Perforation of root canal space due to endodontic treatment (finding)| which I think should be a disorder so no need to extend the template to clinical finding.
Cheers
Elaine
Thanks @Elaine Wooler , it sounds good to address the single finding concept. The cardinality is updated in the template language and the template is approved.
Hi @Elaine Wooler, I have made some changes to the template, e.g. added status and version, clearly indicated self-grouped attributes of 'due to' and 'clinical course', aligned the cardinality for finding site in the template and template language. There are different results for the template compliance reports when 'due to' is included. Please review them to see if the template needs to be revised further.
Cheers,
Yong