Starting with section I, the form captures two sets of data:
The disease/condition directly leading to death, (a).
Two possible antecedent causes, (b) and (c).
The existing DHIS2 tracker (see reference 1) goes up to four possible antecedent causes numbered (b), (c), (d) and (e).
In OpenMRS terms I would tend to see this as five obs constructs for (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) that share the same questions:
Cause of death (Question/Coded), eg. ICD10-K720.
Interval between onset and death (Question/Numeric), eg. 1.
Units of interval between onset and death (Question/Coded), eg. Hours.
Underlying cause of death (Question/Boolean), eg. True.
Hopefully there is a more elegant way to that but I would basically end up with five convenience sets to record those five âsameâ obs constructs (same in the sense that they are made of the same questions):
(a) Disease or condition directly leading to death
(b) First antecedent disease or condition leading to death
(c) Second antecedent disease or condition leading to death
(d) Third antecedent disease or condition leading to death
(e) Fourth antecedent disease or condition leading to death
PIH implemented a death certificate form. Unfortunately itâs never been used in production. (Long complicated story but no reflection on the functionality)
And I guess thatâs what I was maybe looking forâŠ
@akanter is CIEL:1815 (Diagnosis sequence number) the numbering found on the death certificate going from (a) to (e)? I think so as per its description:
The number/order of a diagnosis on a list or death certificate.
If yes then thatâs it, we will just need to add those questions to the CIEL:1816 ConvSet:
Interval between onset and death (Question/Numeric)
Units of interval between onset and death (Question/Coded)
162569 is the current cause of death list which can be used to capture Causes of death from a death certificate. I am not sure the need to include the âunderlying cause of deathâ as opposed to contributor to cause of death as the ordering on the death certificate is usually sufficient. Can someone clarify if that is truly required?
I agree that the interval and units would need to be added.
I think people expect that the ordering of the top three are the causes of death and >3 are just associated. I donât know if specifying one âunderlying cause of deathâ has any meaning and why we would need to capture that element on each diagnosis.
In short this comes from DHIS2, and I donât know why DHIS2 does that.
@jesplana would it be ok to just assume that the last entry is de facto the underlying cause of death? So the one reported as âResultsâ with the encompassing SMoL code?
@mksd I think so but this also assumes that the person filling in the death certificate enters cause(s) of death in the correct order (which is how itâs done on paper anywayâŠ).
If the cause of death is âunknownâ then the underlying cause of death is also âunknownâ.
I think DHIS2 modeled it that way to allow âeasyâ data analysis. As it was designed in a tracker program, it has a program rule that takes the data from a data element that has the check next to the âunderlying cause of deathâ and pushes the data value to the question: Underlying cause of death. Which allows for generating a list of âunderlying causes of deathâ.
Ok thatâs what I was suspecting, they added one more question to facilitate analysing the data. Letâs try to not do that in OpenMRS as it would require to add one more boolean question to CIEL:162569.
@akanter what about those âResultsâ above, made in DHIS2 of:
The underlying cause of death (as text).
The SMoL code.
The ICD-10 code.
?
Looks like 1. is unnecessary anyway, since itâs the FSN of 2. So the âResultsâ are in the end made of two coded concepts:
Wow, I had no idea about all of this. We hadnât needed to include SMoL or the one underlying cause. Since there is no way to know what the ultimate cause is from just the list, I do think we need a flag concept which would be applied to the last diagnosis on the list within Section I. I will look into whether CIEL should have SMoL codes as maps.
I donât know what the actual user demand is for these codes. Since CIEL has more specific codes, those are what are supposed to be used. The SMoL codes can be calculated from the ICD-10 codes so capturing them in CIEL is a large overhead that probably is not warranted (unless I hear otherwise). As for underlying cause, I think we do need to add a new boolean flag which would be set for the primordial cause in section I.
@akanter it sound good to me to have the boolean concept under CIEL:162569 members. It would actually solve our current situation for the underlying cause of death. Thanks!