Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
<colgroup><col style=”mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 2862; width: 62pt;” width=”82″ /> <col style=”mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4096; width: 88pt;” width=”117″ /> <col style=”mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 10170; width: 219pt;” width=”291″ /> <col style=”mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 3584; width: 77pt;” width=”103″ /> <col style=”mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4421; width: 95pt;” width=”127″ /> <col style=”mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1373; width: 30pt;” width=”39″ /> <col style=”mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 3467; width: 75pt;” width=”99″ /> </colgroup>
LOINC_NUM ApplicableContext AnswerListName DisplayText AnswerListLinkType Score AnswerStringId 88122-7 Often true | Sometimes true | Never true | DK DK or Refused NORMATIVE 0 LA30968-4 88122-7 Often true | Sometimes true | Never true | DK Often true NORMATIVE 1 LA28397-0 88122-7 Often true | Sometimes true | Never true | DK Sometimes true NORMATIVE 1 LA6729-3 88122-7 Often true | Sometimes true | Never true | DK Never true NORMATIVE 0 LA28398-8 88122-7 99595-1 Often|Sometimes|Never true Often true NORMATIVE LA28397-0 88122-7 99595-1 Often|Sometimes|Never true Sometimes true NORMATIVE LA6729-3 88122-7 99595-1 Often|Sometimes|Never true Never true NORMATIVE LA28398-8 88122-7 99593-6 Often|Sometimes|Never true Often true NORMATIVE LA28397-0 88122-7 99593-6 Often|Sometimes|Never true Sometimes true NORMATIVE LA6729-3 88122-7 99593-6 Often|Sometimes|Never true Never true NORMATIVE LA28398-8 88122-7 96777-8 Often|Sometimes|Never true Often true NORMATIVE LA28397-0 88122-7 96777-8 Often|Sometimes|Never true Sometimes true NORMATIVE LA6729-3 88122-7 96777-8 Often|Sometimes|Never true Never true NORMATIVE LA28398-8 Actually, this example suggests you can switch to a list that drops answers (and scores), even if there is a normative root binding.
Immediate question answered.
But still curious about whether you can change answers in ways other than narrowing them.
Thanks, Pam!
Looks like, for a 2-value set, only 5 have neither specific semantics nor scores, and all but one have “local codes.” Leaving LL361-7 – Y/N, which is by far the most commonly used.
Still confirming we don’t need nulls.
Current counts of non-deprecated use of 2-value Y/N answer sets (top 7 of 23):
#LOINCs AnswerListId AnswerListName
598 LL361-7 Y/N
300 LL963-0 Y1/N0
115 LL251-0 OASIS_M0200
43 LL365-8 [HL7-0136] Yes|No
24 LL5955-1 Yes 1/ No 0
12 LL1555-3 PhenX10_59
10 LL4175-7 Yes (1) | No (0) | If no, record time
We have some EHR tables summarizing lab results we’d like to surface in FHIR. For instance, there is a Parasitology table, and we thought we might use 42807-8 Parasite identified in Isolate for these results, not having any organism-specific test names.
However, some of the result strings are negative, so using “prid” might be incorrect. Is there a more general test we could use for this? Same question for virology, bacteriology, mycology, mycobacteriology.
Thanks, Pam,
Yes, our source system uses the compositional approach, so if there’s precedent we’d prefer to keep it that way. But if that’s not what they mean, we don’t want to sow confusion.
Many thanks.
I have another case.
For 2823-3 POTASSIUM, the example unit is mmol/L, and the recorded unit is MEQ/L (the equivalent UCUM being meq/L). I’m no laboratorian, and I have no idea when mmol is or is not synonymous with meq, but my assumption is that since they may differ, we use meq/L. However, it’s not entirely clear that this is a valid use of 2823-3. I can see using unit magnitudes different from the example, but not different unit dimensions. Is this a problem?
I think the expectation is that a record of the measurement of a quantity should specify units. LOINC codes identify sample units, but as long as you’re in the right dimension, you can convert. Your body weight measurement should be include a unit, e.g., a UCUM unit code. The user interface might presume or dictate the use of a specific unit and not represent it on the screen, but a transmitted record would need an explicit unit.
Thanks Dan,
I’m not sure that does it.
I think you’re saying that the LOINC codes for the concepts imported from Playbook belong, of course, to the LOINC system. And that the playbook codes still exist as part of the RadLex system. And there is no OID for a value set that would contain either set of codes.
So I suppose my next question is, would either organization have a problem with my creating a FHIM value set in VSAC to do just that? And if not, where might I find a copy of the mapping file?
