#191: represent PCORI CDM 2.x terminology as i2b2 metadata
-----------------------+------------------------
Reporter: dconnolly | Owner: dconnolly
Type: problem | Status: new
Priority: medium | Milestone:
Component: data-stds | Resolution:
Keywords: | Blocked By: 109
Blocking: 317 |
-----------------------+------------------------
Comment (by nateapathy):
Following up on the discussion from 8.11.15 GPC Dev call:
{{{
c) how cost effective to switch to SCHILS terms from GPC?
i) Dan : feedback from Cerner folks? (not here today). I’ll try to
catch up with
them
ii) PR/UTSW: vote to not switch, prefer to maybe map between the two,
but our
GPC terms cover more granular and we’d lose that if we switch
iii) DC/KUMS: maybe adopt SCHILS terms for things we haven’t settled
for GPC
yet, e.g. use SCHILS for procedures but not diagnoses
iv) RW/KUMC: obesity & adaptable trials drive timeline (for Sept.) to
implement new
CDM terms
}}}
The most significant improvement that the SCILHS ontology provides is that
it aligns with best practices for i2b2 design and comes with CDM creation
scripts using the "PCORNET_CD" field. The most obvious design improvements
are how demographics are stored in the database and how modifiers are
structured. The transition from the Cerner standard i2b2 ontology to the
SCILHS ontology was relatively straightforward, largely thanks to the use
of best-practice designs for i2b2. For example, storing patient
demographic data as observations in the OBSERVATION_FACT table is not a
standard design practice, and the SCILHS ontology resolves this.
As for granularity, it can always be added back in later versions, and I
would like to see us pursue that with SCILHS as a partner rather than
creating a hybrid which will undoubtedly be more convoluted for the end
user.
It also gives us significant ability to leverage other groups' work, and
decreases the distance between "proprietary" i2b2 design and something
moderately resembling a standard, at least across i2b2-using PCORnet
CDRNs. It would behoove us to tack as closely as possible to any
repeatable standards emerging from other groups, as it only increases our
economies of scale. My understanding from comment3 on this ticket is that
we would be adopting the SCILHS ontology as a group - I did not think the
decision was still up for debate.
I also recognize that other groups are focusing on the Obesity terms and
ADAPTABLE terms. As CMH will not be participating in ADAPTABLE, we've had
cycles to focus on the SCILHS effort that other teams won't have for some
time.
--
Ticket URL:
<http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/191#comment:7>
gpc-informatics <http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/>
Greater Plains Network - Informatics
_______________________________________________
Gpc-dev mailing list
Gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu
http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
