| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submitted on August 31, 2005
Accepted on January 9, 2006
Affiliation of the authors: 1 Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; 2 Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; 3 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Rochester, MN, USA; 4 Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, USA
* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Previous investigators have defined clinical interface terminology as a systematic collection of healthcare related phrases (terms) that supports clinicians' entry of patient-related information into computer programs, such as clinical note capture and decision support tools. Interface terminologies also can facilitate display of computer-stored patient information to clinician-users. Interface terminologies interface between clinicians' own unfettered, colloquial conceptualizations of patient descriptors and the more structured, coded internal data elements used by specific healthcare application programs. The intended uses of a terminology determine its conceptual underpinnings, structure, and content. As a result, the desiderata for interface terminologies differ from desiderata for healthcare-related terminologies used for storage (e.g., SNOMED-CTr), information retrieval (e.g., MeSH) and classification (e.g., ICD9-CMr). Necessary but not sufficient attributes for an interface terminology include adequate synonym coverage, presence of relevant assertional knowledge, and a balance between pre- and post-coordination. To place interface terminologies in context, this manuscript reviews historical goals and challenges of clinical terminology development in general, then focuses on the unique features of interface terminologies.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. L. Schnipper, J. A. Linder, M. B. Palchuk, J. S. Einbinder, Q. Li, A. Postilnik, and B. Middleton "Smart Forms" in an Electronic Medical Record: Documentation-based Clinical Decision Support to Improve Disease Management J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 2008; 15(4): 513 - 523. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. T. Rosenbloom, R. A. Miller, K. B. Johnson, P. L. Elkin, and S. H. Brown A Model for Evaluating Interface Terminologies J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., January 1, 2008; 15(1): 65 - 76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. E. Andrews, R. L. Richesson, and J. Krischer Variation of SNOMED CT Coding of Clinical Research Concepts among Coding Experts J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 2007; 14(4): 497 - 506. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. A. Spooner and and the Council on Clinical Information Technology Special Requirements of Electronic Health Record Systems in Pediatrics Pediatrics, March 1, 2007; 119(3): 631 - 637. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. L. Richesson, J. E. Andrews, and J. P. Krischer Use of SNOMED CT to Represent Clinical Research Data: A Semantic Characterization of Data Items on Case Report Forms in Vasculitis Research J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., September 1, 2006; 13(5): 536 - 546. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |