To what extent can prescriptions be meaningfully exchanged between primary care terminologies? A case study of four western European classification systems

The diversity of terminologies used in primary care causes significant challenges regarding semantic interoperability. Attempts to address these challenges usually focus on the creation of metaterminologies, with the peculiarities of national variations of terminologies being overlooked. In this study the extent to which primary care data can be meaningfully exchanged between nationally implemented terminologies is assessed using a rule-based approach. To determine this, a model comprising primary care terminologies and including axioms to define their relations was developed. Generic metrics were designed to determine the completeness and accuracy of any two arbitrary vocabularies within an ontological model. These metrics were used on an implementation of the model to determine the data quality that is preserved when expressing similar data in different primary care terminologies. The results show that values of terminologies which are closely related can express each other's concepts relatively well. The authors conclude that the current state of accuracy and completeness between primary care terminologies does not allow for sufficiently meaningful semantic interoperability, but that their approach of mapping lower-level terminologies to each other next to an ontological approach may yield better results than relying solely on the latter.

[1]  Letha H. Etzkorn,et al.  Indicating ontology data quality, stability, and completeness throughout ontology evolution: Research Articles , 2007 .

[2]  Richard Y. Wang,et al.  Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations , 1996, CACM.

[3]  Sjaak Brinkkemper,et al.  General practitioners’ attitudes towards decision-supported prescribing: An analysis of the Dutch primary care sector , 2013, Health Informatics J..

[4]  Carlo Batini,et al.  Data Quality: Concepts, Methodologies and Techniques , 2006, Data-Centric Systems and Applications.

[5]  David L. Reich,et al.  Extraction and Mapping of Drug Names from Free Text to a Standardized Nomenclature , 2007, AMIA.

[6]  Yannis Kalfoglou,et al.  Ontology mapping: the state of the art , 2003, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[7]  Sjaak Brinkkemper,et al.  STRIPA: A Rule-Based Decision Support System for Medication Reviews in Primary Care , 2015, ECIS.

[8]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  Ontology Matching: State of the Art and Future Challenges , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[9]  Chunhua Weng,et al.  Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research , 2013, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[10]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Schema Matching and Mapping , 2013, Schema Matching and Mapping.

[11]  Letha H. Etzkorn,et al.  Indicating ontology data quality, stability, and completeness throughout ontology evolution , 2007, J. Softw. Maintenance Res. Pract..

[12]  Gunnar H. Nilsson,et al.  Mapping the categories of the Swedish primary health care version of ICD-10 to SNOMED CT concepts: Rule development and intercoder reliability in a mapping trial , 2007, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[13]  P. Minuz,et al.  Medication errors: prescribing faults and prescription errors. , 2009, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[14]  Patrick Kierkegaard,et al.  E-Prescription across Europe , 2013 .

[15]  Paul Armstrong,et al.  Prescribing errors in general practice: A prospective study , 2009, The European journal of general practice.

[16]  Alan L. Rector,et al.  Competing Interpretations of Disorder Codes in SNOMED CT and ICD , 2012, AMIA.

[17]  Alan R. Aronson,et al.  Effective mapping of biomedical text to the UMLS Metathesaurus: the MetaMap program , 2001, AMIA.

[18]  Steven H. Brown,et al.  Automated identification of postoperative complications within an electronic medical record using natural language processing. , 2011, JAMA.