Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

How to populate procedure_type_concept_id when the procedure is recorded as an EHR encounter #683

Closed
burrowse opened this issue Apr 23, 2024 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@burrowse
Copy link

How to populate procedure_type_concept_id when the procedure is recorded as an EHR encounter

CDM or THEMIS convention?

Themis (with update to the CDM documentation as well)

Table or Field level?

Field

Is this a general convention?

No

Summary of issues

Current CDM Website Text

Choose the PROCEDURE_TYPE_CONCEPT_ID that best represents the provenance of the record, for example whether it came from an EHR record or billing claim. If a procedure is recorded as an EHR encounter, the PROCEDURE_TYPE_CONCEPT would be ‘EHR encounter record’. Accepted Concepts. A more detailed explanation of each Type Concept can be found on the vocabulary wiki.

Potentially, the bold piece that corresponds to what to do when the procedure is recorded as an EHR encounter record could be a Themis convention on its own.

Summary of answer

  • If a procedure is recorded as an EHR encounter, the PROCEDURE_TYPE_CONCEPT would be ‘EHR encounter record’

Related links

@MelaniePhilofsky
Copy link
Collaborator

@clairblacketer @burrowse In the CDM documentation, we should link all *_type_concept_id fields to the Vocab page with these definitions. https://github.com/OHDSI/Vocabulary-v5.0/wiki/Vocab.-Type_Concept

@clairblacketer
Copy link
Contributor

@MelaniePhilofsky I agree, I'll move this to a CDM issue

@clairblacketer clairblacketer transferred this issue from OHDSI/Themis Apr 24, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants