UI text incorrect in visit attribute dropdown in cohort builder

[ablack3]

Expected behavior

When adding attributes to a visit occurrence in the Atlas cohort builder the text should refer to "Visit".

Actual behavior

A few of the text strings in the attribute dropdown refer to "Condition" instead of "Visit".

[ablack3]

Also apparently users are a bit confused about the meaning of "visit type" so it would be helpful to provide some text to cue them to the meaning of visit type. In many contexts "visit type" would refer to something like "inpatient" or "outpatient" visit. But in this context visit type refers to something like "EHR" or "Insurance Claim". For experienced OHDSI folks this may be intuitive but at least some new users were confused by it. The suggestion was to add a small bit of text like ("EHR or Claim") to the attribute dropdown to give users an idea of what visit type means in Atlas.

[gklebanov]

But in OMOP, there is no EHR or Claims? Isn't OMOP a source system independent and patient centric?

[ablack3]

Yea I see your point @gklebanov. It seems like it would be odd to use the visit type concepts in a cohort definition that is supposed to work across CDMs and be agnostic to the source of the data (EHR, claims). The visit type concepts are very much tied to the source.

This suggestion came from Atlas office hours.

[gklebanov]

also, the "visit type" concepts seem to be non-standard. Interesting... let's chat about it?

[chrisknoll]

The description of the _type concept fields is as:

Delineates the origin of the source information, standardized within the Standardized Vocabularies. For example, DRUG_TYPE_CONCEPT_ID can allow analysts to discriminate between ‘Pharmacy dispensing’ and ‘Prescription written’

So, adding language to describe it as 'origin' or 'provenance' of the data is fine. No idea why they called this 'type' but that's a separate question.

[ablack3]

So are type concepts something we want people using in cohort definitions? I does seem a bit strange to say "I want drug X that comes from an insurance claim" in an OHDSI cohort definition which is supposed to be source agnostic. I mean wouldn't this automatically preclude such a cohort definition from working on all CDMs across the OHDSI network? But I'm sure there is a use case (e.g. "primary" diagnosis code logic in claims data).

[chrisknoll]

I don't usually use them, but there may be a specific use case for it. I'm trying to think back many years about where I saw 'primary' diagnosis, I think that was in TYPE once upon a time, but moved to the STATUS column at a later date.