PROVIDER.DEA

[ericaVoss]

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

• OMOP GitHub.io - PROVIDER

Other comments/notes

• No specific THEMIS rules on DEA
• Not much on the Forums

[clairblacketer]

This column need documentation

[cgreich]

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.

[MelaniePhilofsky]

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.

[cgreich]

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.