I’ve noticed the concept relationship mappings for ‘OPCS4 - SNOMED’ have a lot of issues. The most common of which I’m seeing is that the OPCS4 concepts map to SNOMED concepts that have a much more vague meaning, causing a significant loss in detail. It’s a little odd because a good portion of the OPCS4 concepts have an equivalent SNOMED concept, often with the same concept name.
Format: (OPCS4 concept | SNOMED concept that its mapped to | SNOMED concept by joining on concept name)
I came across this after Usagi suggested a few terms get mapped to OPCS4 (correctly as they are standard concepts) but do we not need to leverage the mappings. Do other institutions use these relationships? Is this an issue folks plan to address? If the answer to the last two questions is no perhaps we should consider changing the status of the relationships to invalid?
Lastly, it seems odd to have concepts in different vocabularies with the same concept name, domain, and meaning and have them both be standard.