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.
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.
- 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.
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
Can you check the table against those resources?
Wait. I’m somehow lost. Haven’t we done that? I’m pretty sure that I actually mapped these things in order that we previously agreed on.
I did it by hand on the fly. Needs to be checked. Right now, there are almost no “Maps to” links.
There aren’t many, right. And Gowtham’s links are already incorporated (or we’re missing the file).