Feature Proposal - RFC - (Feature Name)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature Proposal - RFC - (Feature Name)

Mhairi O'Hara
Hello Tagging Mailing List,

We would like to bring your attention and comments on the proposal for the staff_count:doctors and staff_count:nurses tags, which helps identify the number of doctors and nurses at a given health facility [1][2]. The operational_status tag, which has been proposed before and I would like to highlight again, as this is used to document an observation of the current functional status of a mapped feature (i.e. health facility) [3]. The health_amenity:type tag is also being proposed, as this indicates what type of speciality medical equipment is available at the health facility [4] and the final tag is insurance:health which describes the type of health insurance accepted at a health facility [5].

Some of these are already in use but have never been formally accepted, or properly described as to how they should be applied, which we would like to try and achieve if possible for the Healthsites.io project. Please take a look at the proposal pages on the OSM Wiki, as well as the Global Healthsites Mapping Project page [2] which is at the core of the recent work focused on creating a health facility data model. We look forward to discussing these proposals on the respective Wiki discussion pages.

Kind regards,

Mhairi

[5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:insurance:health


--
Mhairi O'Hara
Project Manager
@mataharimhairi


Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team
Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development
web
 |      twitter
 |      facebook
 |      donate

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Feature Name)

Graeme Fitzpatrick

Hi Mhairi

Couple of questions & comments for you thanks.

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 06:22, Mhairi O'Hara <[hidden email]> wrote:

We would like to bring your attention and comments on the proposal for the staff_count:doctors and staff_count:nurses tags, which helps identify the number of doctors and nurses at a given health facility [1][2].

With regard to staff, what number do you want - the total staff posted to this facility, or the number usually available at any time?

eg our local Medical Centre (which I know isn't an emergency facility, but is still an example) has 9 GPs & 6 nurses in all, but only 6 Dr's & 3 nurses are usually on deck at any time during the week, while over the weekend, that drops to 2 + 1. So would you want staff as 9 + 6 or 6 + 3?

& in regard to the same thing for major facilities, once again, how do you want to count them? 

eg this hospital has 100 Doctors, made up of 20 Emergency, 10 surgeons, 5 obstetricians, 5 anaesthetists, 30 general medical staff, 10 specialists of various types & so on. They work 2 shifts of 40 (8, 4, 2, 2 etc) each day, with a skeleton staff of 20 (4, 2, 1, 1 ...) available over night. So is that a count of 100 Doctors or 40?
 
the final tag is insurance:health which describes the type of health insurance accepted at a health facility [5].

I understand what you're getting at here, but the example you give: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Healthinsurance-osm-germany.png, appears to relate to the business / customer service office of the Health Insurance company, & nothing actually to do with hospital charges! 

I'm afraid that that one may become impossible to specify & maintain?

I don't know how things operate overseas, but here in Australia you have both public & private hospitals. 

Basically, anyone can use a public hospital, more or less for free, but for non-emergencies, there will be a (sometimes) lengthy delay before one of their specialists can see you. 

Private hospitals are usually only open to those people who have private health insurance, but their are ~40 private health insurers in Australia, & not all of them have arrangements with every private hospital. So for each of them, you would have to list all the companies (possibly 40) that are accepted at the hospital, which would mean approaching every hospital &/or insurance company to confirm that this hospital does indeed accept this cover.

Please don't get me wrong, it's an admirable task! :-), but there's a few more details to work out.

Thanks

Graeme

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Feature Name)

marc marc
In reply to this post by Mhairi O'Hara
Hello,

Le 19.06.19 à 22:17, Mhairi O'Hara a écrit :
> Hello Tagging Mailing List,

imho you request too many comment in one email,
the thread 'll soon become unmanageable

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses

there is a difficulty in using osm for volatile data: should the value
in osm be changed each time a staff member is on vacation? or should
the definition of the tag be changed to say that it describes the
average value outside of a particular event? but in this case, if the
amenity double its staff temporarily for an event, how will the user
know this since the average value does not take it into account ?

for the tag itself, a more common namespace would have been
doctors:count or doctors:avg:count (or :capacity if it's about
the capacity)

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status

amenity=toilets for a closed toilets is an exemple of bad tagging.
see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status#Shares_the_same_problems_as_the_old_styles_of_using_disused.2Fabandoned
but the tag itself is an improvement for "not fully closed" amenity.

> [4]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type

please check the approved and 10x more used
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare
what's new/diff in your propal ? the previous propal said
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0#What_healthcare.3D.2A_is_lacking
but you are talking about taginfo usage but nearly all of them
have already a "more in used tag"
you also said "speciality medical equipment", but some of them aren't
an equipement (psychologist, dentist,...) so it's very unclear what
you want todo, just valid the tag without any value ? bad idea.
show the need that existing tag miss, not an "openbar" rational.

Regards,
Marc
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Feature Name)

Violaine_Do
In the main wiki page referencing those tag propals, Global Healthsites
Mapping Project indicates the use of electricity tag which is a proposal
for now. It seems interesting for me to consider also :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:electricity

for those who would have this time.

Thks

On 19/06/2019 12:55, marc marc wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Le 19.06.19 à 22:17, Mhairi O'Hara a écrit :
>> Hello Tagging Mailing List,
> imho you request too many comment in one email,
> the thread 'll soon become unmanageable
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses
> there is a difficulty in using osm for volatile data: should the value
> in osm be changed each time a staff member is on vacation? or should
> the definition of the tag be changed to say that it describes the
> average value outside of a particular event? but in this case, if the
> amenity double its staff temporarily for an event, how will the user
> know this since the average value does not take it into account ?
>
> for the tag itself, a more common namespace would have been
> doctors:count or doctors:avg:count (or :capacity if it's about
> the capacity)
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status
> amenity=toilets for a closed toilets is an exemple of bad tagging.
> see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status#Shares_the_same_problems_as_the_old_styles_of_using_disused.2Fabandoned
> but the tag itself is an improvement for "not fully closed" amenity.
>
>> [4]
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type
> please check the approved and 10x more used
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare
> what's new/diff in your propal ? the previous propal said
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0#What_healthcare.3D.2A_is_lacking
> but you are talking about taginfo usage but nearly all of them
> have already a "more in used tag"
> you also said "speciality medical equipment", but some of them aren't
> an equipement (psychologist, dentist,...) so it's very unclear what
> you want todo, just valid the tag without any value ? bad idea.
> show the need that existing tag miss, not an "openbar" rational.
>
> Regards,
> Marc
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

--
Violaine_Do


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Feature Name)

Warin
In reply to this post by marc marc
On 20/06/19 08:55, marc marc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 19.06.19 à 22:17, Mhairi O'Hara a écrit :
>> Hello Tagging Mailing List,
> imho you request too many comment in one email,
> the thread 'll soon become unmanageable

+1

>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses
> there is a difficulty in using osm for volatile data: should the value
> in osm be changed each time a staff member is on vacation? or should
> the definition of the tag be changed to say that it describes the
> average value outside of a particular event? but in this case, if the
> amenity double its staff temporarily for an event, how will the user
> know this since the average value does not take it into account ?

The data is not that volatile. Temporary staff comes in where that is necessary, usually for smaller facilities.
Larger facilities shuffle staff around as they can with larger numbers.

>
> for the tag itself, a more common namespace would have been
> doctors:count or doctors:avg:count (or :capacity if it's about
> the capacity)

Staff:*=* could be used in more places. So I think that is a better approach.

>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status
> amenity=toilets for a closed toilets is an exemple of bad tagging.
> see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status#Shares_the_same_problems_as_the_old_styles_of_using_disused.2Fabandoned
> but the tag itself is an improvement for "not fully closed" amenity.

I would use the description key for these temporary things. Has the advantage of already implemented and infinatly variable.

>
>> [4]
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type
> please check the approved and 10x more used
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare
> what's new/diff in your propal ? the previous propal said
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0#What_healthcare.3D.2A_is_lacking
> but you are talking about taginfo usage but nearly all of them
> have already a "more in used tag"
> you also said "speciality medical equipment", but some of them aren't
> an equipement (psychologist, dentist,...) so it's very unclear what
> you want todo, just valid the tag without any value ? bad idea.
> show the need that existing tag miss, not an "openbar" rational.

Possibly a 'service' key .. but not the word service as that is in too much use and maybe confused with other things?
However, the services offered will be limited by the equipment available so it maybe better to limit the tagging to that?
e.g. Dental_Engine, MRI, Xray, operating_theatre ???


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Feature Name)

Joseph Eisenberg
I agree that this discussion should be in 5 different threads, one for
each tag, so I will respond in that way, and on the individual pages.

In general, I appreciate the work that you are doing on this, but I
don't think you should rely too much on the abandoned healthcare 2.0
proposal - it wasn't very well though out.

I'm a physician from the USA who lives in eastern Indonesia, and I'd
be happy to give some help to this project if you want to contact me
directly.

On 6/20/19, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 20/06/19 08:55, marc marc wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Le 19.06.19 à 22:17, Mhairi O'Hara a écrit :
>>> Hello Tagging Mailing List,
>> imho you request too many comment in one email,
>> the thread 'll soon become unmanageable
>
> +1
>
>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses
>> there is a difficulty in using osm for volatile data: should the value
>> in osm be changed each time a staff member is on vacation? or should
>> the definition of the tag be changed to say that it describes the
>> average value outside of a particular event? but in this case, if the
>> amenity double its staff temporarily for an event, how will the user
>> know this since the average value does not take it into account ?
>
> The data is not that volatile. Temporary staff comes in where that is
> necessary, usually for smaller facilities.
> Larger facilities shuffle staff around as they can with larger numbers.
>
>>
>> for the tag itself, a more common namespace would have been
>> doctors:count or doctors:avg:count (or :capacity if it's about
>> the capacity)
>
> Staff:*=* could be used in more places. So I think that is a better
> approach.
>
>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status
>> amenity=toilets for a closed toilets is an exemple of bad tagging.
>> see
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status#Shares_the_same_problems_as_the_old_styles_of_using_disused.2Fabandoned
>> but the tag itself is an improvement for "not fully closed" amenity.
>
> I would use the description key for these temporary things. Has the
> advantage of already implemented and infinatly variable.
>
>>
>>> [4]
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type
>> please check the approved and 10x more used
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare
>> what's new/diff in your propal ? the previous propal said
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0#What_healthcare.3D.2A_is_lacking
>> but you are talking about taginfo usage but nearly all of them
>> have already a "more in used tag"
>> you also said "speciality medical equipment", but some of them aren't
>> an equipement (psychologist, dentist,...) so it's very unclear what
>> you want todo, just valid the tag without any value ? bad idea.
>> show the need that existing tag miss, not an "openbar" rational.
>
> Possibly a 'service' key .. but not the word service as that is in too much
> use and maybe confused with other things?
> However, the services offered will be limited by the equipment available so
> it maybe better to limit the tagging to that?
> e.g. Dental_Engine, MRI, Xray, operating_theatre ???
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Feature Name)

Violaine_Do
Hello,

This is an interesting point. I always found healthcare2.0 (1) better
structured than healthcare (2)? Could you explain your point?

 From my view,

healthcare leads to use different kind of items, taking examples:

healtcare=clinic is a type of healthcare facility, and
healthcare=dentist is for me, a type of speciality. Then
healthcare:speciality, specifiies a speciality. I would have liked to
have healthcare=office (or even doctors) or
consulting_room+healthcare:speciality=dentist. I totally understand that
we want to point out a dentist office (and not a speciality) but I feel
like things are mixed.

Then in healthcare2.0 proposal, there were a debate to use sepacialty
instead of speciality... (3)

So I liked the proposal of health_facility:type= from healthcare 2.0
especially because it takes into account health centre and health post.
(which I guess is possible to add to healthcare=*?)

Looking forward to read your views on that, it always questionned me.

1 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0

2 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare

3:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0#Word_for_particular_areas_is_SPECIALTY_not_speciality

On 19/06/2019 20:06, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> In general, I appreciate the work that you are doing on this, but I
> don't think you should rely too much on the abandoned healthcare 2.0
> proposal - it wasn't very well though out.

--
Violaine_Do


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Feature Name)

Mhairi O'Hara
Hello everyone,

Thank you so much for the comments on the tags. This feedback is extremely helpful to ensure we are going down the right path, as there are indeed some details to work out. Hearing examples of how these tags (for example the insurance:health) would potentially be applied in various countries around the world, builds a better picture of the feasibility of putting it into practice. There have also been many comments on the staff_count:doctor and staff_count:nurse tags, regarding whether this pertains to the number of staff on average per day at the health facility, or the total number of staff that work there. And this is a very good point, which needs to be clarified as it can really make the difference. 

I also hear the suggestion that each of the proposed tags should have their individual e-mails, so that this thread doesn't get too long and confusing. The idea was to share them as one so that readers would be able to see that they are all part of the large Global Healthsites Project, and then each tag would have its own discussion on their dedicated 'Discussion' pages on their proposed Wiki page. This would be the easiest to track the comments/suggestions of each tag, and allow for some external (to this thread) OSM user who comes across it on the wiki to follow the discussion and history of it.

However, this is my first time proposing tags so I am very open to suggestions. We are taking into account all the comments and will hopefully come back with some collective thoughts on the suggestions within the next couple of weeks. I wanted to say thank you to Joseph Eisenberg, who provided me with some much needed guidance on how to approach this and would love to jump on a call with you at some point when you're free. Funny enough, I am based in the Lesser Sunda Islands but am currently travelling. Very interested to hear what brought you out there!

Kind regards,

Mhairi


On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:30 PM Violaine_Do <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

This is an interesting point. I always found healthcare2.0 (1) better
structured than healthcare (2)? Could you explain your point?

 From my view,

healthcare leads to use different kind of items, taking examples:

healtcare=clinic is a type of healthcare facility, and
healthcare=dentist is for me, a type of speciality. Then
healthcare:speciality, specifiies a speciality. I would have liked to
have healthcare=office (or even doctors) or
consulting_room+healthcare:speciality=dentist. I totally understand that
we want to point out a dentist office (and not a speciality) but I feel
like things are mixed.

Then in healthcare2.0 proposal, there were a debate to use sepacialty
instead of speciality... (3)

So I liked the proposal of health_facility:type= from healthcare 2.0
especially because it takes into account health centre and health post.
(which I guess is possible to add to healthcare=*?)

Looking forward to read your views on that, it always questionned me.

1 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0

2 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare

3:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0#Word_for_particular_areas_is_SPECIALTY_not_speciality

On 19/06/2019 20:06, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> In general, I appreciate the work that you are doing on this, but I
> don't think you should rely too much on the abandoned healthcare 2.0
> proposal - it wasn't very well though out.

--
Violaine_Do


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Mhairi O'Hara
Project Manager
@mataharimhairi


Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team
Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development
web
 |      twitter
 |      facebook
 |      donate

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Feature Name)

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Violaine_Do
>  From my view,
> healthcare leads to use different kind of items, taking examples:
>
> healthcare=clinic is a type of healthcare facility, and
> healthcare=dentist is for me, a type of speciality.

The tag amenity=clinic (and the alternative but much less used
healthcare=clinic) defines a feature that is a general or specialty
clinic, usually staffed by several physicians, usually people with the
degree "M.D.".

Physicians ("doctors") can specialize in various fields after they
receive their medical degrees by going to a residency program, perhaps
followed by a fellowship.

A dentist's office is quite different. Dentists go to different
professional schools and receive a "D.D.S" or "D.M.D." degree. They
have their own specialty programs.

We use "amenity=clinic" or "amenity=doctors" versus "amenity=dentist"
because that fits the usual, common terminology.

> Then in healthcare2.0 proposal, there were a debate to use sepacialty
> instead of speciality... (3)

I can't address this, since I'm not aware of common British English
usage. It appears that the oed and Cambridge dictionaries say that
"speciality" is the more common British term?

We should use what is common in every-day speech, not the terms that
are used within the healthcare system only. Perhaps our English
contributors can chime in?

But since healthcare:speciality= has been used 39k times, it probably
shouldn't be changed even if specialty is slightly better

> I liked the proposal of health_facility:type= from healthcare 2.0
> especially because it takes into account health centre and health post.
> (which I guess is possible to add to healthcare=*?)

"healthcare=centre" has been used 5698 times - I would use it for an
outpatient surgical center for example

"health post" could be useful for the "Pustu" here in Indonesia, which
are usually supposed to be staffed by a nurse or midwife instead of a
physician. But "healthcare=nurse" has been used 122 times and
"healthcare=midwife" 427 times.

The one issue would be health posts that have no trained nurse or
midwife, but only a minimally-trained "community health worker", eg
"kader kesehatan" in Indonesian - this situation is common in very
remote areas in Asia and Africa. But I would use the "healthcare=" key
for this.

- Joseph

> On 19/06/2019 20:06, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> In general, I appreciate the work that you are doing on this, but I
>> don't think you should rely too much on the abandoned healthcare 2.0
>> proposal - it wasn't very well though out.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging