Needs help on chief complaints mapping

Hello!

This is not necessarily true. In my experience, things that are similar in clinical settings, like injection of contrast media and injection of a vaccine may be on neighbouring rows in source data, but end up in different CDM tables (device_exposure and drug_exposure respectively) and will have to be queried differently.

That is absolutely intended. Exposure to tuberculosis is an event that does not necessarily reflect changes in patient’s biology. Researches looking for patients with exposure to infectious disease would query OBSERVATION table. Similar groups of concepts that are Observations are personal histories of diseases and suspicion of diseases. Providers may code them in the same fields as actual Conditions, because they require similar set of tests or procedures done when reported, but they are not Conditions in OMOP.

That is also correct approach.

My advice would be to map all c/c concepts to whatever Standard concepts for them are in Athena and put them in Standardized Clinical Data Tables later with respect to which Domain target concept belongs to.

If you have massive data set that has concepts from mixed domains, you could start by automatically creating draft mapping with USAGI with filtering by Domain left unchecked. It’s not without it’s quirks, so you will still have to check resulting mappings manually, but usually source data with higher occurrence is also cleaner lexically (containing less acronyms and typos), so it’s reasonable to expect good results on high counts.