OHDSI Home | Forums | Wiki | Github

Potential for non-individuals in the provider table

CDM Builders
#1

The source data for one of OUR OMOP conversions at IQVIA has a significant percentage of type 2 (non-individual) providers in their provider table. Type 2 providers are typically locations.

Our current practice is to leave the provider_id field null in the transaction tables. (condition_occurence, procedure_occurence, etc) We would like to preserve this information and are wondering whether anyone else in the community would consider non-individual records in the provider table to accommodate this.

Thanks, Tom Galia thomas.galia@iqvia.com

Care sites and specialty, specialty code clean-up
#2

Hi @Tom_Galia,

Locations belong in the Location table. Or the Care_Site table. It depends on the data. Would either of those tables meet your use case? Also, there is discussion about this issue in the Themis Group #4 1

#3

Thanks Melanie!

I spoke with our team and they are in agreement.

type 2 providers should be care sites and locations

I will add this to the standards in our working group.

Tom

#4

FWIW as one example, we have non-individual providers retained in our data when they’re administrative constructs that provide useful information (e.g. specialty) that’s different from location. So while I might not argue for retaining a “provider” of “Orthopaedics Clinic North”, I might for “Orthopaedics Physical Therapy Provider” as a meaningful local generic.

Care sites and specialty, specialty code clean-up
#5

It is a common practice to have specialty codes referring to care sites. @bailey I think it is an important information to bring up.

Provider Specialty code set clean up
Care sites and specialty, specialty code clean-up
#6

@bailey @Gowtham_Rao Is this something we want to discuss at the THEMIS sub-group? I’m trying to schedule the next meeting, but I think it’s something worth having a quick chat about.

#7

I think so

#8

@mvanzandt Sounds like a great idea. I have chronic problems with Tuesday meetings, but if I can’t make the call I’m happy to send more info about what we’re using the “generic” providers for.

#9

@bailey @Gowtham_Rao

We are currently voting on the a bi-weekly series for the Person, Provider, etc THEMIS sub-group. Please use this doodle pool link to help us determine which day works best for everyone.

https://doodle.com/poll/h97gd4s4u8vyrhkw

t