HL7 and negation

Colin Sutton Colin.Sutton at ctc.usyd.edu.au
Wed Jun 8 03:44:10 EDT 2016


It strikes me that some of those 'use cases' are summaries, so the semantics should take into account the components.

For example:
'No known allergy’ has a multiplicity of possible derivations: 'allergy status not tested', ‘never taken penicillin’, 'never eaten peanuts’ , ’allergy status not in medical record' etc.

‘Condition in remission’ could be ‘ Six weeks/months/… since condition [e.g. arythmia] occurred’ or ‘ Last two measurements [e.g creatinine] show condition no longer appears’.

Trying to assign a  boolean value to a summary is not useful - it already *is* a status.

Regards,
Colin


On 8 Jun 2016, at 4:54 PM, GF <gfrer at luna.nl<mailto:gfrer at luna.nl>> wrote:



Dear Colleagues,

HL7 is thinking about the problem of negation.
 http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Negation_Requirements<http://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=1688&d=uMHX16PS0xvqXZ3w_B1fJxc2NNZJK0lSCJWay3Y1yA&u=http%3a%2f%2fwiki%2ehl7%2eorg%2findex%2ephp%3ftitle%3dNegation%5fRequirements>
The group discussing it created a document with negation use cases.

My questions are:
- Can you let us know your reaction to this list of use cases?
And
- How should ‘negation’ be handled the best in respect of semantic interpretability?

My personal opinions:
- the boolean should not be used
- try to translate the ‘negation’ problem into ‘presence and absence’. A concept is or is not present, a numeric result is of is not present.
- do not use pre- and post co-ordinated concepts using SNOMED but use the SNOMED primitives.

I’m curious to learn what your opinion is.

Gerard
<NegationUseCases.xlsx>


#####################################################################################
Scanned by MailMarshal - M86 Security's comprehensive email content security solution. 
#####################################################################################

________________________________________
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. The CTC is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of the CTC. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient.
________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20160608/77180a12/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list