Note table

[noemie (Noemie Elhadad)]

Hi all,

Following today’s presentation, I’d like to start a thread for us to discuss proposed edits to the Note table.

So far, the NLP working group have the following proposed edits. I am also adding suggestions made at today’s meeting.

• language: (new optional field) specify language of note
• note_date: add to specs that if multiple dates exist for a given note, include the signature date in this field
• note_text: make the field optional
• note_source_value: make the field longer (varchar(250), edit definition to mention “note title”, and remove link to standardized source
• note_source_value: replace with five fields that follow the LOINC axes
  • note_role_concept_id
  • note_domain_concept_id
  • note_setting_concept_id
  • note_service_concept_id
  • note_kind_concept_id

[HuaXu]

Noemie - what about the Note-NLP table? Did you start a separated thread for that table?

[Vojtech_Huser (Vojtech (Vojta) Huser)]

1. I think what you propose makes good sense.The proposal should clearly specify how to find eligible concepts for each of the new columns. For example note_role_concept_id what concepts are “standard there”.

2. About LOINC vs. OMOP concepts: I second and support what Rima said about duplicating LOINC. It will be maintenance job to “split” from LOINC. I would rather work with LOINC and try to fix their Document Ontology. If their role hierarchy is “bloated” - let’s voice that feedback. I feel hesitant to introduce new standard for document types when one already exist and make no effort to fix the existing one. How will we communicate which bloated LOINC roles we plan to “silently ignore”. For the role codes we “endorse” - will those be the LOINC ones or we will duplicate those as “OHDSI concepts”. (btw, can we stop using OMOP since it terminated 3 years ago; it is extremely confusing to new-comers)
   

   

[Christian_Reich]

@noemie:

@noemie

So far, the NLP working group have the following proposed edits.

Please put them into the proposal page. Or, if you want me to do it, let me know.

@noemie

language: (new optional field) specify language of note

The field would be language_concept_id, and we have concepts for those

@noemie

note_source_value: make the field longer (varchar(250), edit definition to mention “note title”, and remove link to standardized source
note_source_value: replace with five fields that follow the LOINC axes

Wait. You want to make it longer, or you want to break it up? Or both?

@Vojtech_Huser

I feel hesitant to introduce new standard for document types when one already exist and make no effort to fix the existing one.

100% agree.

@Vojtech_Huser

“OHDSI concepts”. (btw, can we stop using OMOP since it terminated 3 years ago; it is extremely confusing to new-comers)

Stop!!! You are wrong here. We made the explicit decision to not call those things “OHDSI”, but keep the OMOP moniker. There are a few reasons:

• Changing a brand is very tough, requires a lot of resources (human and money), and you want a really good reason for doing it. Just glibly start calling it OHDSI will not do the job, but just confuse the hell out of everybody.
• Most of the world, and particularly the industry, knows this stuff under OMOP.
• We want to visibly capture the good outcomes of OMOP (since we did all the work), and ownning the brand will emphasize that we are the people who brought the world OMOP.
• Why bother? Leave it. We have enough real work to do.

So, it is explicitly not “OHDSI CDM” and “OHDSI Standard Vocabularies”, but OMOP. Unless we change the decision.

[wanghaisheng]

sir ,you said “I second and support what Rima said about duplicating LOINC. It will be maintenance job to “split” from LOINC”, is there any splitting work here now or just an idea?
i am curious how