2022 Changes to the Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure - Impact on SNOMED CT

2022 Changes to the Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure - Impact on SNOMED CT

4th March 2022: Please be advised SNOMED International is putting on hold any changes in this area while concerns raised from members are investigated and further clarity obtained on how this is to be handled internationally by WHO.

Summary

Please see attached briefing note.

 

Relevant documents

 

Actions: 

Date

Requested action

Requester(s)

Response required by:

Comments

Date

Requested action

Requester(s)

Response required by:

Comments

24 Jan 2022

Response on attached briefing note 

@Elaine Wooler

@Camilla Wiberg Danielsen Feb 21, 2022 Heart failure feedback
@Anna Harasim Feb 21, 2022 Heart failure feedback
@Elze de Groot Feb 21, 2022 Heart failure feedback
@Linda Parisien Feb 21, 2022 Heart failure feedback
@susannaprnn Feb 21, 2022 Heart failure feedback
@Former user (Deleted) Feb 21, 2022 Heart failure feedback
@Jostein Ven Feb 21, 2022 Heart failure feedback
@Theresa Barry Feb 21, 2022 Heart failure feedback
@Libby Antoun Feb 21, 2022 Heart failure feedback
@Katrien Scheerlinck (Unlicensed) Feb 21, 2022 Heart failure feedback

@Eugene Viacrucis Feb 21, 2022 Heart failure feedback

Please post your final responses in the Country response table below. Discussion comments can be made as comments.

Links

 

Country response 

Country

Date

Response

Country

Date

Response

USA

23JAN2022

I am afraid there is not a good solution to this problem. Essentially, the current concept is for "A or B". We can retire it and create "A" and "B", which will be disruptive for analytics – 2 queries needed for before and after the change. Or we can transform "A or B" into "A alone" and  create B, which seems less disruptive, but will muddy the analytical waters. The continuation of "A or B" into "A alone" will result in queries for this concept that return different cohorts depending on when the query was made ("A or B" before the change, "A alone" after).

Regardless of the solution, it looks like such changes require careful documentation and education.

Also, this type of change is not uncommon – it has been seen many times in the UMLS Metathesaurus. Such changes should be handled uniformly, not on a case-by-case basis. From an editorial perspective, SNOMED International should have a policy about such changes and how to handle them.

Norway

01.02.2022

We prefer option 1, if this entails the creation of the 4 concepts. It is very important that the resulting hierarchy under Heart failure is consistent.

UK

09.02.2022

This has been discussed and feedback will be provided by Emma via Member Forum.

The Netherlands

9-2-2022

We prefer option 2, it's the most consistent solution and in line with the authoring guides.

Australia

20220221

Our preference is Option 2. We do note that either option will have significant work in Terminology especially with regards to modelling as these changes will also have an impact on its descendants. We also note that the affected concepts appear in several of our reference sets.

Will there be a remodeling of the attribute |Finding site - Left cardiac ventricular structure| once the synonym |Left ventricular failure| is inactivated? We also note that the terms 364006 |Acute left-sided heart failure (disorder)| and 111283005 |Chronic left-sided heart failure (disorder)| have the |Finding site - Left cardiac ventricular structure|.

With the creation of new concepts |Left heart failure| and |Right heart failure|, are you looking at modelling it with Finding site - 17398003 |Structure of left side of heart| and 79561009 |Structure of right side of heart|, respectively?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Member countries without a CMAG rep

 

 

 

CMAG response

Date

CMAG Response

Next steps

Date

CMAG Response

Next steps

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final outcome: 

Date: 

 

Copyright © 2025, SNOMED International