We are looking for insights from other implements about how you are capturing the provenance or meaning (condition_type_concept_id) of cconditions that are explicitly documented in your EHR as being the focus of a specific procedure.
We are pulling data from a professional billing file that contains up to 6 diagnosis codes for each procedure billed - one primary condition and up to 5 additional secondary conditions. We originally used ‘primary diagnosis’ and ‘secondary diagnosis’ as condition_type_concept_ids, but this isn’t accurate. These conditions are not primary or secondary encounter diagnosis, but rather primary and secondary targets of a procedure.
What are folks’ thoughts about a concept similar to:
32892 OMOP4976962 Condition to be diagnosed by procedure
Perhaps something like:
XXXX OMOPXXXXXX Condition treated | targeted by procedure
We believe its important to include these conditions in the CONDITION_OCCURRENCE table, as we’re finding that there are conditions captured discretely in this table that are not captured in any of the other diagnosis tables in our system.
Thanks in advance for any insight you may have,