ProblemCondition instead of sphn:Diagnosis

[SarehAghaei]

According to the SNOMED CT-based meaning binding in SPHN, sphn:Diagnosis is equivalent to snomed:Diagnosis (observable entity). In MUG data, diagnoses are expressed using ICD-10 codes. If MUG diagnoses are mapped to sphn:Diagnosis, then it can later be inferred that a SNOMED observable entity has an ICD-10 code. Is this inferred statement acceptable from a medical point of view? If not, what is the alternative?

[KateSerafimova]

It's true that the 439401001 | Diagnosis (observable entity) |, which is equivalent to sphn:Diagnosis, doesn't include the SNOMED hierarchy that is needed. Therefore, I would suggest to deprecate sphn:Diagnosis and introduce a new class - aidava:Disorder, that will be equivalent to 64572001 | Disease (disorder) |. In that way, aidava:Disorder will cover clinical findings, that are not a Problem condition (55607006 | Problem (finding) |).

TBD about Oncology diagnosis - issue #13

[SarehAghaei]

Hi Katerina,

AFAIK, conditions in FHIR cover disorders/diseases and clinical findings in SNOMEC CT also cover disorders/diseases. Then, I think sphn:problemCondition (equal to 404684003 |Clinical finding (finding)|) would be enough and there is no need to define a new class.

[KateSerafimova]

ProblemCondition is equivalent to Problem (finding), not to Clinical finding. Other option is to change that, but I don't know what the effect of that will be.

[KateSerafimova]

Use a concept that is equivalent to SNOMED's clinical finding - try to change Problem Condition definition

[KateSerafimova]

SPHN Concepts are equivalent to SNOMED and LOINC terms as follows:

• Diagnosis = 439401001 | Diagnosis (observable entity) - will be deprecated
• ProblemCondition = 55607006 | Problem (finding); 44100-6 | Medical problem - will be changed

The ProblemCondition will be changed to be equivalent to SNOMED 404684003 | Clinical finding (finding) and to LOINC 75321-0 Clinical finding (which is also related to LP185402-7 Clinical finding)