OHDSI
PROVIDER.DEA
PROVIDER.DEA
CDM or THEMIS convention?
CDM
Table or Field level?
Field
Is this a general convention?
Field
Summary of issues
- None
Summary of answer
- I do not see any commentary on this column. Just documenting that here and I will close this out.
Related links
Other comments/notes
- No specific THEMIS rules on DEA
- Not much on the Forums
Or killed. Together with NPI. For observational research, we don't need them. For provider profiling including their identity it is useful, but I am not sure the OMOP CDM is the right place for that type of use case.
No, we shouldn't remove the DEA or NPI fields. Melanie's mantra: We don't know who is currently using this field or how they are using it. Therefore, we shouldn't make breaking changes to the CDM or Vocabs without a thorough assessment and lengthy comment period. We can put it on the 'to do' list, but it's not harmful, so I would give it an extra low priority. If anything, we should focus on removing / changing status of PHI fields and tables from the 'canonical' CDM to status of 'expansion' CDM. I think that is much more beneficial to the community.
Exactly. That stuff is Expansion. It makes no sense outside the US anyway, and the core OMOP CDM's use case is to generate RWE from populations, not to track individual fully identified patients/providers/care sites. But you are right, there might be use cases.
Ok, the removal of NPI or DEA columns from the PROVIDER table is a different issue than the original one to add documentation to the column. I will open a separate ticket for that suggestion.
I am going to close this one out as there is no explicit ETL guidance to give beyond the description of what the DEA number is