Inclusion into vocabulary - Codes for Point of origin, priority of admission and patient discharge status

Vocabulary Users
1

There are these code-sets that are very valuable but are not on OMOP vocabulary:

Point of Origin for Admission or Visit (Form Locator 15 on UB04) - useful to describe where the patient came to receive care, e.g. from home, or clinic etc

Priority(type) of Admission (Form locator 14 on UB04) - indicates if the admission/visit was emergency, urgent, elective, newborn, trauma etc.

Patient Discharge Status (Form locator 17 on UB04) - indicates where the patient was discharged to; useful for readmission calculation (e.g. discharged from one hospital into another hospital vs. discharged to home/self care).

Type of Bill (Form locator 04 on UB04) - useful for inpatient vs outpatient; skilled nursing; and a lot of financial analysis.

Present on admission (Form locator 67 on UB04) - did it develop during care, or before?

Occurrence Codes (Form locator 31-34) - last menstrual period, onset of symptoms

These are small code sets - is it possible to include them in the vocabulary?

Thank you!

2

Thanks for asking this. These code-sets are common in HCUP data too (since its derived from UB04) and I was also wondering how to represent them using OHDSI vocabulary.

3

Thank you. These are claim-artifacts, but have current uses.

@Christian_Reich are these are the next steps?

  1. Review the proposed vocabulary - and determine if they are OMOP ‘standard’ or ‘non-standard’ based on ‘dirty’ domain rule
  2. Generate concept_id
  3. If standard - then use as is
  4. If non-standard - then map concept_id to standard concept_id using snomed relationship
4

Friends:

Stop. Don’t jump ahead. We have a whole activity bringing these in: http://www.ohdsi.org/web/wiki/doku.php?id=documentation:next_cdm:transitionofcare. Let’s do that together.

For the vocabulary mapping during ETL the process is:

  1. Find a concept based on the vocabulary_id and code
  2. Use the “Maps to” relationship to map to the Standard Concept(s) (even if it is already standard, in that case it will map to itself).
  3. Use it

Yours don’t fit that process, because they are not part of any one vocabulary. You’ll have to do a hard-wired mapping to the appropriate codes. It’s not that many. We also need to write that up properly.

5

Hi @christian_reich, could we visit trying to include this?

These are all attributes of a claim record, i.e. visit record

6

@Gowtham_Rao: Absolutely.