No, the accession number should definitely not be in the observation_fact table. That would be a bad bug.
I'm trying to reproduce it here... -- Dan ________________________________ From: gpc-dev-boun...@listserv.kumc.edu [gpc-dev-boun...@listserv.kumc.edu] on behalf of Lenon Patrick [ple...@uwhealth.org] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:42 AM To: gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu Subject: NAACCR Ontology - Accession and Seq No? Hello again all, In building NAACCR concepts via my modified versions of KUMC’s naaccr_txform.sql and naaccr_concepts_load.sql, I’m producing concepts and facts for each value of both Accession No. and Hospital Sequence No. This seems unnecessary, since I can’t see accession number being part of a researcher’s query, not to mention possible de-identification issues. So, my questions are: 1) Is this actually the correct outcome? 2) Assuming it isn’t, did I miss a step where these two fields (or their section, 6 Hospital-Specific) are filtered out of the fact and concept builds? I’d expect that to be in the definition of the “big flat view” aka tumor_item_value. Awaiting your input eagerly. Patrick Lenon HIMC Informatics Specialist 608 890 5671
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list Gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev