I realize that the accessory “Loinc Display Names” was created to give a more user friendly description of an item, but I really don’t think this is enough. These algorithmically generated names are not appropriate for user display in an EHR [eg “WBC 12H LM NRat (Urine sed)”]–it is probably impossible to generate a user (ie provider) friendly name from these fully specified long names. I realize that pure vocabularies are not really concerned with the user friendly aspect, but I feel this needs to be provided by some source. It is not enough to say that the EHR should use its native terms–as EHRs more and more frequently are able to exchange data with completely separate EHR systems, we will need to find a way to display a user-friendly version of an observation type that may not be in the local EHR’s vocabulary. And I’ve been told that LOINC’s license either prohibits or strongly discourages the inclusion of user friendly strings with LOINC codes when transmitting data between systems.
And it should be said that the long common name (LC) term type values are typically WAY too long to be practical for user facing purposes. They could be condensed significantly. And if one were to lose the requirement that this name be ‘fully specified’ (ie unique), then significant strides could be made.
I understand that a single term type will not be able to accomplish this, but I feel that three additional term types could.
Has anyone out there had to deal with determining user friendly names from outside medical records containing LOINC codes that do not match up with local vocabulary?