Hello,
I am working with a conversion currently that needs some more granular places of service. I would like to request new place of service concepts for the following:
They make sense. At some point, we will probably take that into the CDM/Vocab workgroup to review the Places of Service. Right now, we are using the CMS ones, but they are clearly somewhat arbitrary. Americans are used to them, but folks from outside the country keep struggling.
I am not sure what kind of Place of Service “Observation” would be. We would probably also spell out IP, OP and ER.
Question to the larger community: Any other thoughts or objections?
Like we discussed at face2face - it’s a “place” where “service” is given. “Place” at a “location” is a “care site”. Standardizing places as concept_ids is hard, something we as a community decided we cannot do.
EMRs and claims systems use “place of service” confusingly. – is the key idea being to represent the place or the service?
Service is an attribute of the visit, because you could have ICU (service) at an emergency room (place). You could also have emergency (service) at emergency room (place). Service is inferred by using a combination of condition, procedure, provider specialty, care site and visit type.
This is an unsolved problem.
Started as a billing artifact: http://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/124274/health-policy/observation-care