Hi @jcase thank you for these clarifications.
-
“Thus, the three terms—lesion, injury, and traumatic injury—represent distinct semantic categories.” –> Does this mean that all “injury“ concepts defined as caused by a traumatic event should be changed to include the word “traumatic” in their FSNs?
Just one example (there are many): 212303005 |Open injury, posterior interosseous nerve (disorder)|, with defining relationship Due to > Traumatic event.
-
From what you say, I can see how there’s a need in English-speaking clinical settings for “lesion” concepts. However, this is not the case for other languages, definitely not for French and Dutch (Belgium’s languages), where the “lesion” concept is useless when there is an injury counterpart for the same body site, and causes a lot of confusion for practitioners, since both lesion and injury translate as the same words in our languages.
We could use an artificial translation for lesion as a workaround (sth like ‘tissue abnormality’), but this will not solve the issue.In this case, the ideal solution would be for to be able to exclude lesion concepts from our national edition. Is there a possibility SNOMED would allow countries to selectively inactivate certain concepts from the international edition? This could also be used to exclude US/UK concepts related to housing types, occupations, environments, etc. that have no use in other countries.