chenejac
commented
11 years ago Jon Corson-Rikert said:
3/20/12 comment from Janos Hajagos, Stony Brook (via ontology list) I saw on the agenda for tomorrow's is an item about coding medical/board specialties. There is a healthcare provider taxonomy code set which is designed for this purpose.
"Meeting one or more of the following provides additional business justification of the need for a unique code: American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and/or American Osteopathic Association certification exists. Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) – accredited residency or subspecialty training program Existence of a nationally recognized specialty board, or a specialty defined by a subspecialty certification or a certificate of special competence issued by such a board or a nationally recognized accrediting body, or recognized by a regulatory agency Demand for services is such that a significant number of providers choose to limit their practice to that specialty The specialty is based on major new concepts in health science having broad professional support The specialty is a distinct and well-defined new field of health care that entails special concern with the problems of a specific patient group, organ system, disease entity, or health care procedure" from http://www.nucc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=40. The codes can be downloaded as CSV:
http://www.nucc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=57
As this it is a taxonomy it could easily be converted into skos. The one remaining question to me is whether the codes are copyrighted and if so can they incorporated into VIVO?
-Janos
Paul Albert (Migrated from VIVO-1104) said:
Moved to this Jira from [https://issues.library.cornell.edu/browse/VIVOONT-440] and [https://issues.library.cornell.edu/browse/VIVOONT-430] Board certifications - the medical specialties and subspecialties issued by various ABMS member boards. For me, the only questions are:
Paul's comment 1/11/12 on [https://issues.library.cornell.edu/browse/VIVOONT-430] Specialties Specialties are meant to represent branches of medical science. A provider’s set of specialties aims to answer the question of What type of doctor are you? Each set is comprised of manually selected terms combined with the specialties under which they are board-certified. The board certifications are obtained from the Office of Faculty Affairs. The majority of our providers have board certifications from the ABMS (on their site you can see a comprehensive list of specialties for which they provide certifications). The specialty terms used in our CMS comes from a proprietary lexicon by IMO (Intelligent Medical Objects), which is heavily derived from SNOMED CT. I am fine with referring this data as “Clinical Specialties.”
Clinical Expertise Our expertise terms are meant to encode specific health problems or medical procedures. They are manually assigned to the doctors’ profiles by the doctors or their administrative staff. The prospect of programmatically assigning these terms to our providers based on their clinical histories is something being researched by Victor Brodsky and Tru Tran in POIS, and is not implemented in production. The terminology also comes from IMO’s proprietary lexicon. I would object to calling these “Clinical Subspecialties” because “subspecialties” has an established connotation (as can be seen on the ABMS website) of “a specialty within a specialty” which does not match our usage.
This is [https://github.com/openrif/vivo-isf-ontology/issues/750]