Split care_site.csv in two?

[alistairewj]

Seems like the care_site.csv contains a mapping for services and units, though I think it's cleaner to have these two mappings in separate files. Thoughts?

[alistairewj]

Also, is place_of_service_concept_id the source value concept ID? https://github.com/MIT-LCP/mimic-omop/blob/a815d0acbdc79d14943c18888a5fae20e912c22d/extras/concept/care_site.csv

[parisni]

sure, csv could get cleaning a bit.

About place_of_service_concept_id, it should be related to domain_id = Place of Service . However, the available concept_name were not that explicit so that we added detailled description of ICU kind when needed and took it from SNOMED/observation..

[alistairewj]

I see - so let me clarify. Right now for example we have:

• NSURG
• Neurologic Surgical - surgical, relating to the brain
• place_of_service_concept_id = 45773132
• visit_detail_concept_id = 4149152

The place_of_service_concept_id above is http://athena.ohdsi.org/search-terms/terms/45773132 - which is "Neurosurgery clinic" and is non-standard, but under the domain "Place of Service".

What about neurosurgical service: http://athena.ohdsi.org/search-terms/terms/4149159

This is standard, but under the domain "Observation", which you say is incorrect. Still, it seems like the more correct label? What are your thoughts?

[parisni]

About neurosurgical service: Sure, while not being from place of service this one at least looks better standard

This is standard, but under the domain "Observation", which you say is incorrect. Still, it seems like the > more correct label? What are your thoughts?

The point is using Observation was better than proposing our own coding, or worth: just using the ICU level with no more details.