Provider Specialty code set clean up

[Christian_Reich]

Friends:

Just talked with the THEMIS 1 folks, and @razzaghih said she may have a solution. So, I retract all I said.

[MPhilofsky (Melanie Philofsky)]

NUCC will need a hierarchy to be useful

I do think adding the hierarchies found here would be useful. Also, the crosswalk you linked should be used for mapping to the standard concept_id.

Specialties may apply to care-sites.

I want to focus on the Provider table here. That is an issue for the appropriate THEMIS WG.

Is the idea to enhance the provider table thru CDM WG to add a new concept to represent provider’s certification? i.e. create a level_source_value and level_source_concept_id and level_concept_id fields? With concept_id being used to represent the highest level license e.g. MD > mid-level providers like PharmD, RPH, Nurse Practionner, PA > next-level RN, BSN > next-level Patient care technician > next-level non-clinical care givers including family care givers?

Yes. A “certification/license/title/level” *_source_value, *_source_concept_id and *_concept_id would be added to the Provider table. I think many of these values are represented in the NUCC code set (very American representation). Community members with non-US data @Rijnbeek @rwpark @MaximMoinat @nicolepratt @leenad @SCYou and others I missed, should review the NUCC code set for comprehensiveness. We may need to utilize another code set for these values.

[Christian_Reich]

Friends:

Could we sit down, take all the NUCC, ABMS, HES Specialty and Specialty-CMS and make a definitive list with a hierarchy and no duplicates?

[ericaVoss]

All,

This was tied to this Vocabulary issue:

Issue: Duplicate provider specialties

I know I’m part of THEMIS but I haven’t heard much on this topic. Was there some resolution here?

[aostropolets (Anna Ostropolets)]

Yes, we’re removing all the duplicates. And are creating a hierarchy, which is even cooler

[Christian_Reich]

Please go here: Care sites and specialty, specialty code clean-up

Let’s close this one.

[ericaVoss]

@aostropolets, @Christian_Reich, @Dymshyts,

This has come up in THEMIS. However based on this thread it looks like this might already be covered. Do we need to remove duplicates as part of this work?

Could you provide an update?

Specialty & Add Clinical Title

[Christian_Reich]

Sorry. Tried to find all places where we discussed this. So, yes, thanks.

And no, NUCC doesn’t trump everything. It is OMOP>Specialty>Place of Service>NUCC>ABMS>HES Specialty>UB04. But it really doesn’t matter. The other ones will be mapped over in case of duplicates.

[ericaVoss]

@Christian_Reich. @aostropolets, & @Dymshyts,

But has the integration into the Vocabulary been completed or is it still work in progress? Or do people need to still discuss how this needs to be done.

[aostropolets (Anna Ostropolets)]

Seems like Christian is done with showing how the approach is better than any other. If so, we need to put it into the vocabularies in January after the holidays are over.

[ericaVoss]

@aostropolets

Is there a Vocabulary ticket that I can reference so I can close out the THEMIS ticket?

I just want to connect all the dots.

[aostropolets (Anna Ostropolets)]

Sure it is!
(Ok, just created it; probably we’re too spoiled by Erica keeping an eye on the vocabularies issue page :))
Here

[Christian_Reich]

Thanks. I was looking for that ticket as well.

Christian I think is done. Folks don’t seem to have objections. I will send over to the vocab team. We can always improve. And add.

[Gowtham_Rao]

Team - is there an interest in providing longer descriptive synonyms to some/all of these concepts? I am imagining populating the concept_synonym table for each of the concept_id being worked on.

Because we will populate a vocabulary table - standardized softwares like ATLAS can now use these fields and show the results as part of the vocabulary search (making the guess work lesser).

[MPhilofsky (Melanie Philofsky)]

is there an interest in providing longer descriptive synonyms to some/all of these concepts?

Yes. EHR data has many custom codes. A description of each would make it easier for those mapping source to concept.

[Christian_Reich]

providing longer descriptive synonyms

Do you have them?

[Gowtham_Rao]

Do you have them?

No. It’s an idea. Would it be possible to use concept_synonym to maintain 1:n synonyms? If yes, then maybe we could work on it together.

[Christian_Reich]

Yes, you can have as many synonyms as you want. Yes, let’s do that, but we should still roll out the current set of concepts if no other improvements are found.

[Gowtham_Rao]

@Christian_Reich @Dymshyts - here are some ideas for concept_synonym

• NUCC vocabulary (Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Code Set ) map to descriptions from here
• CMS specialty codes maps to NUCC. (Although I would ask that we rename the name of this vocabulary as CMS specialty codes - to disambiguate)
• NUCC Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Code Set has classifications built in here that i think we should incorporate as classification concepts or even concept ancestor hierarchy (if standard). Also described[here] .(https://www.hipaaspace.com/medical_billing/coding/health_care_provider_taxonomy_codes/taxonomy_codes_lookup.aspx)
• For ABMS vocabulary here are paragraph descriptions.

[Gowtham_Rao]

Regarding mappings: These mappings are already done by external sources, and we need to import them into OMOP. Some of these mappings are already in ATHENA may only need updating/validation for accuracy.

• We can map NUCC to CMS specialty codes here
• We can map CMS specialty codes to ABMS
• We can map ABMS to NUCC