I am working with a large HIE to ingest many terabytes of clinical and claims data into the CDM. The code normalization power of the vocabulary + Usagi is incredible. However, we also perform electronic clinical quality measures (eCQM’s) and other measures that rely on curated Value Sets of standard terminologies to indicate concepts. The Value Set Authority Center at NLM is a great resource for these Value Sets. My question is this:
When mapping many thousands of codes it would be ideal to prioritize those codes that are important to value sets over those that do not appear in any of the standard VSAC value sets. How can this be accomplished with Usagi and OHDSI in general?
Thanks in advance for your advice!
Value Set Authority Center
Having the commonly use Value Sets represented as standard concept sets or cohorts within Atlas would be quite nice; and might encourage re-use of existing content before creating local variants.
Moreover, for some eCQM, (like #2 for Depression Screening and follow-up), there are references to multiple screening instruments. It would be nice to see those represented in OHDSI in a consistent manner.
Have you assessed whether OHDSI/Atlas has the expressive ability to represent most/all of the approved eCQM - perhaps as 3 cohorts for each (denominator, numerator, and exclusion cohorts)?