Sunday, February 23, 2014

99% of HL7 clinical value sets are invalid (?)

Intriguing Table 2 from 

AMIA Annu Symp Proc.2012;2012:988-96. Epub 2012 Nov 3.
Issues in creating and maintaining value sets for clinical quality measures.
Winnenburg R1Bodenreider O.

reporting results of quality assurance of clinical value sets performed by the US National Library of Medicine (NLM) Value Set Authority Center (https://vsac.nlm.nih.gov/). I insert a portion of this table here:


Can it really be that 99% of the 842 HL7 clinical value sets evaluated are invalid?

PLEASE NOTE COMMENT BY LLOYD MCKENZIE BELOW

1 comment:

Lloyd McKenzie said...

Given that the methodology for determining validity was to check them against the UMLS rather than the source of truth, the results are unsurprising. UMLS was last loaded with HL7 vocabularies about 10 years ago. The HL7 code systems have grown considerably since then, including apparently, the majority of the small number of HL7 codes used in CQI (which is a rather new initiative). Unfortunately, UMLS does not have the funding to import newer versions of the HL7 code systems. The new VSAC organization will be gathering HL7 codes as they are published by HL7 3 times a year, so validating codes there should run into fewer issues.