SNOMED+Discussion


 * **Pros** || **Commenter Name** ||
 * Adopted by PH, especially for organism names || Riki Merrick ||
 * Used in combination with generic LOINC (for culture) this will help automate detection of reportable lab results || Riki Merrick ||
 * Use for absence and presence findings like detected, not detected etc also enables automation and aggregation || Riki Merrick ||
 * Increased use across the lab domain will increase interoperability while preserving the local language || Riki Merrick ||


 * **Cons** || **Commenter Name** ||
 * One code can be represented with several descriptions - need to get clear OK from regulatory bodies (CMA, CAP), that lab results may be reported at the concept level rather than at the verbatim level - from an implementation point of view, if you use CWE.9 (original text) as your "print text, you could even cover the verbatim CLIA could require along with the SNOMED code in CWE.1 to CWE.3. || Riki Merrick ||


 * Other Discussion:**
 * As per 6/7/11 meeting with LRI IG WG**
 * Segment/Field to consider using SNOMED CT as Vocab with field data type of CWE ||> Comment: ||
 * SPM 04 - Specimen Type ||>  ||
 * SPM 05 - Specimen Type Modifier ||>  ||
 * SPM 06 - Specimen Additives ||> Field is optional ||
 * SPM 07 - Specimen Collection Method ||>  ||
 * SPM 08 - Specimen Source Site ||>  ||
 * SPM 09 - Specimen Source Site Modifier ||>  ||
 * OBX 05 - Observation Value ||>  ||