openEHR SNOMED CT extension

[damoca (David Moner)]

SpO2 scale 2 decision

Excellent . Do we need to also have a local codesystem, for folks who can’t use SNOMED for licensing reasons? Or is this something to negotiate with SNOMED as a set of free terms?

This message from @ian.mcnicoll made me think… If you search for SNOMED in Discourse, you will find that the binding of archetypes to SNOMED is not a new topic.

The question is, has openEHR ever considered requesting a SNOMED CT namespace? That would open up a number of opportunities:

• It would make it easier to generate our needed SNOMED CT concepts for term binding within archetype structures.
• Our local terms could be published inside a standard and international framework as an official extension (the openEHR SNOMED CT extension!).
• It might also facilitate the promotion of our local term to the SNOMED CT international edition.

On the downside:

• It would require strict governance of the concepts created, that is, invest time and resources.
• We would be somehow tied to a specific terminology, although we still could provide alternative non-SNOMED codes.
• I’m not sure if there are legal limitations to distribute our own SNOMED extension outside SNOMED International member countries. This is something to explore, and it could be a blocker.

A SNOMED CT namespace can be requested simply by filling a form. This should be straightforward, as openEHR is located in a SNOMED International member country.

Change or add to SNOMED CT | SNOMED International

And according to this post, we have an agreement to works together, so let’s make use of it.

openEHR / SNOMED collaboration

"SNOMED International is pleased to announce a five-year collaboration agreement with openEHR International, a non-profit initiative that develops open standards for electronic health records to improve data interoperability, management, and reuse. The collab responds to a need the openEHR community has identified to include SNOMEDCT in openEHR archetypes and to ensure users of those archetypes employ an international terminology standard for interoperability and SNOMED CT. The collaboration wil…

I know that some aspects of the design and management of SNOMED CT are, at least, controversial. But SNOMED CT is here to stay and it provides several interesting solutions to a complex problem such as terminologies. Maybe we should explore this option.

[heather.leslie]

@Rachel Dunscombe and @Mikael Nyström and some others are having regular meetings with SNOMED International to discuss options for collaboration.

@heather.leslie

I asked this question of Don Sweete and he reassured me we (openEHR) can request terms to be added to the international release. Not sure how to do it in practice, but if we can’t work it out, we can contact them to find out.
We have permission!

This to me is the starting point. But it makes sense to see if we can do it in a more official way.

Regards

Heather

[mikael (Mikael Nyström)]

Requesting a namespace is straightforward, but creating and maintaining a SNOMED CT extension that are using the namespace is resource-intensive. Given our limited capacity, developing our own extension is not a practical use of resources.

We are having promising discussions with SNOMED International about simplifying the process for requesting new SNOMED CT concepts for archetype bindings, though these discussions are still ongoing.