2017 Review of the historical association WAS A

 17 December 2016

 Feedback on WAS A inactivation.

 @Cathy Richardson

Feedback is optional. No response will interpreted as: The reference set is not used within your country and/or inactivation is not an issue for your country.

UK

30/12/2016

We would like to ask for an extension to the feedback time on this as such issues have to be presented to our UKTC Management Team on the 18th January. An extension until the end of Jan would be helpful though if we have to consult more widely then a further extension may be requested. We would appreciate this given the fairly low priority of this item.

 CA

2017-01-03 

 We don't seem to have stakeholders using this in Canada.

AU

2017-01-10

Apologies for the delay. I don't believe there is any usage of this reference set in Australia, and as explained in the slides the same information can be worked out through the historical IS A relationships.
My only question concern (maybe not specific to this proposal) is the example retirement of the "Fisherman"(106400003) concept... Is this just hypothetical, or a genuine planned retirement? The concept seems legitimate? (why retire)

SE

2017-01-10

No use of the WAS A refset in Sweden.

UK

03/0/2017

Feedback from the UKTC is that we can appreciate why this work would need to take place but as it isn’t urgent work we would also appreciate that any changes are delayed until after April 2018.  There was concern that this could impact the UKTC SNOMED CT Query table which is a mechanism for ensuring inactive content is still returned in searches and recommended for use by Joint GP IT committee for use in Primary care systems.  Given this risk a delay on work in the area of WAS A relationships would be appreciated.

Member countries without a CMAG rep