Here in Spain there is an official terminology for medication dispensation. It is partially mapped to snomed (and the remaining ones will be part of snomed national extension) In my opinion, it makes perfect sense to allow the specification of 'units' from other (non-ucum) terminologies, such as snomed or even the national ones
2016-05-19 10:19 GMT+02:00 "Gerard Freriks (privé)" <gf...@luna.nl>: > An alternative for dealing with semantic in archetypes is dealing with > semantics in coding systems like SNOMED. > > The consequence is that SNOMED must be a complete Medicinal Product > Formulary. > I have doubts whether this is a good idea. > > Many countries have different specific formularies. > I like to reserve SNOMED-CT to use as any dictionary with universal > lemma’s, concepts. > Each country will have its own maintained Formulary. > A formulary that changes because of the marketing whims of pharmaceutical > companies. > > > Gerard Freriks > +31 620347088 > gf...@luna.nl > > On 19 mei 2016, at 10:09, Ian McNicoll <i...@freshehr.com> wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > In the UK (and ? Aus/NZ), we would not use arbitrary units in UCUM for > dose units because the latter are expressed as SNOMED terms, and are used > in conjunction with the SNOMED-based dm+d (or AMT) drug dictionary to > compute actual doses/amounts where possible. > > e.g. > > 318421004 | Atenolol 100mg tablets | > > via dm+d allows us to infer that 1 tab (in this case) = 100mg > > http://dmd.medicines.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?VMP=318421004&toc=nofloat > > and allows us to do maximum daily dose calculation, at least against a > defined subset of such 'dose units'. > > in other cases the dose unit strength will be defined as part of the > medication order - we have a 'Strength' element in the medication order > archetype for just such a purpose. > > I don't think we need to be able to define the unit strength as part of > the quantity datatype. > > Ian > > Dr Ian McNicoll > mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 > office +44 (0)1536 414994 > skype: ianmcnicoll > email: i...@freshehr.com > twitter: @ianmcnicoll > > Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org > Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. > Director, HANDIHealth CIC > Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > > On 19 May 2016 at 08:24, Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@openehr.org> wrote: > >> Hi Gerard, >> >> they actually could be, but whenever this discussion comes up, no-one >> proposes it. I'm not sure if I would either, because these arbitrary units >> are still not computable in general, but 'dose units' can be made >> computable but only with some extra data fields, i.e. you need both the >> quantity of dose in 1 tablet/capsule etc, and also number of tablet/capsule >> etc. So the structural model is different anyway. >> >> I think the other problem with using UCUM arbitrary units is that people >> / orgs want to control the names of medicinal delivery products ('tablet' >> etc) in a terminology, which is reasonable, but doesn't fit so well with >> UCUM. >> >> - thomas >> >> On 19/05/2016 08:11, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: >> >> Thomas, >> >> All are Units of a different kind. >> >> SI defines: Units of Measure, and Units of Quantity in the scientific >> domain. >> >> There are also Units of Time: minute, hour, etc. >> >> When I think of tablets, capsule, etc. we will call these Units of >> Medicinal Product Dose. >> Isn’t in UCUM this an example of Arbitrary Units? >> 3.2 ARBITRARY UNITS >> >> *§24 arbitrary units* * ■1* Arbitrary or procedure defined units >> are units whose meaning entirely depends on the measurement procedure >> (assay). These units have no general meaning in relation with any other >> unit in the SI. Therefore those arbitrary semantic entities are called >> *arbitrary >> units*, as opposed to *proper units*. The set of arbitrary units is >> denoted *A*, where *A*∩ *U* = {}. * ■2* An arbitrary unit has no >> further definition in the semantic framework of *The Unified Code for >> Units of Measure* * ■3* Arbitrary units are not “of any specific >> dimension” and are not “commensurable with” any other unit. >> >> Until version 1.6 *The Unified Code for Units of Measure* has dealt with >> arbitrary units as dimensionless, but as an effect the semantics of *The >> Unified Code for Units of Measure* made all arbitrary units >> commensurable. Since version 1.7 of *The Unified Code for Units of >> Measure* it is no longer possible to convert or compare arbitrary units >> with any other arbitrary unit. >> >> *§25 operations on arbitrary units* * ■1* Any term involving >> arbitrary units, is itself an arbitrary unit and is not comparable with any >> other arbitrary unit or term. >> >> *§26 definition of arbitrary units* * ■1* Arbitrary units are >> marked in the definition tables for unit atoms by a bullet (‘•’) in the >> column titled “value” and a bullet in the column titled “definition”. >> >> >> Gerard Freriks >> +31 620347088 >> <gf...@luna.nl>gf...@luna.nl >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org >> >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
