Phillip What you transcribed is exactly what we agreed at Hackathon I(KU March 2014). Hubert just exposed our modifiers deployed on Babel and we have gone part way on the installation but we are adding a second ontology layer for SNOMED CT. I think that Cerner was researching their problem list installation at the time of the Hackathon and we should add their modifiers to problem diagnoses but I would ask Nate Apathy if ?Cerner:Cancelled=Epic:Deleted? or are there differences in meaning between Cerner and Epic on that issue of an erroneous entry that was backed out? Jim ________________________________________ From: Phillip Reeder [phillip.ree...@utsouthwestern.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:37 AM To: Campbell, James R Subject: FW: [gpc-informatics] #90: Diagnoses Modifiers for data attribution
Jim, How do the modifiers I wrote down look to you? Should we add the Cerner Inactive & Canceled modifiers? If we are in agreement on them, I’ll send an update to the group and say this is it for the GPC v1 terminology. Let me know. Thanks, Phillip On 11/12/14, 2:25 PM, "Dan Connolly" <dconno...@kumc.edu> wrote: >This looks OK to me, but I'm not really one to judge. > >I'd like to get a few more opinions. > >To avoid the anoybody/somebody/nobody disease, I rolled my 10 sided die >and it came up 6... MCRF. > >Laurel, what do you folks think? Are you happy to deploy this at your >site? If not, what would you prefer? > >-- >Dan > >________________________________________ >From: Phillip Reeder [phillip.ree...@utsouthwestern.edu] >Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 2:13 PM >To: gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu; campb...@unmc.edu; Dan Connolly >Cc: gpc-...@listserv.kuc.edu >Subject: Re: [gpc-informatics] #90: Diagnoses Modifiers for data >attribution > >Based on the emails I found, and what is on babel, this is what I think >the modifiers should be. The only difference from Babel is in the Billing >Diagnosis modifiers where I tried apply what was in the various emails. > >Cerner had Inactive and Canceled modifiers for the Problem List Diagnosis >in one of the emails. I¹m unsure if they need to be added or if they >could be mapped to the three modifiers from Epic. > >For consistency, is there a preference for Principle vs Primary? Does it >make a difference? > >Modifier Modifier Code >Clarity Table > >Billing Diagnosis > Admit Diagnosis Principle DX|BILL:ADMIT PRINCIPLE >HSP_ACCT_ADMIT_DX > Admit Diagnosis Secondary DX|BILL:ADMIT SECONDARY >HSP_ACCT_ADMIT_DX > Discharge Diagnosis Principle DX|BILL:PRINCIPAL >HSP_ACCT_DX_LIST > Discharge Diagnosis Secondary DX|BILL:SECONDARY >HSP_ACCT_DX_LIST > Discharge Diagnosis Present on Admis.. DX|BILL:POA >HSP_ACCT_DX_LIST >Encounter Diagnosis > Admit Encounter Diagnosis DX|ENC:ADMIT >HSP_ADMIT_DIAGNOSIS > Discharge Encounter Diagnosis DX|ENC:DISCHARGE >HSP_DISCH_DIAGNOSIS > Primary Encounter Diagnosis DX|ENC:PRIMARY >PAT_ENC_DX > Secondary Encounter Diagnosis DX|ENC:SECONDARY >PAT_ENC_DX > Medical History Diagnosis DX:HISTORY >MEDICAL_HX >Order Diagnosis > Order Medication Diagnosis DX|ORDER:MED >ORDER_DX_MED > Order Procedure Diagnosis DX|ORDER:PROC >ORDER_DX_PROC >Problem List Diagnosis > Active Problem DX|PROB:ACTIVE >PROBLEM_LIST > Deleted Problem DX|PROB:DELETED >PROBLEM_LIST > Resolved Problem DX|PROB:RESOLVED >PROBLEM_LIST >Professional Diagnosis > Primary Professional Diagnosis DX|PROF:PRIMARY >ARPB_TRANSACTIONS > Secondary Professional Diagnosis DX|PROF:SECONDARY >ARPB_TRANSACTIONS > > >On 11/12/14, 1:33 PM, "GPC Informatics" <d...@madmode.com> wrote: > >>#90: Diagnoses Modifiers for data attribution >>--------------------------+---------------------------- >> Reporter: campbell | Owner: preeder >> Type: design-issue | Status: assigned >> Priority: major | Milestone: data-domains2 >>Component: data-stds | Resolution: >> Keywords: | Blocked By: >> Blocking: 70, 91, 120 | >>--------------------------+---------------------------- >>Changes (by dconnolly): >> >> * cc: gpc-dev@Š (added) >> * owner: dconnolly => preeder >> * status: reopened => assigned >> >> >>Comment: >> >> Phillip, I re-opene this because your question (Wednesday, November 12, >> 2014 12:44 PM) shows we clearly didn't carry out the recorded decision. >> >> Do you have a preference on what the modifiers actually should be? >> >>-- >>Ticket URL: >><http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/90#comment:7> >>gpc-informatics <http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/> >>Greater Plains Network - Informatics > > >________________________________ > >UT Southwestern Medical Center >The future of medicine, today. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was secured by ZixCorp(R). The information in this e-mail may be privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the addressee(s) above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please delete it and immediately contact the sender. _______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list Gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
