Skip to main content
DataCrafters synthetic data · demonstration

Staff surface Definitions and reviews

Definition library

Every executable definition, side-panel definition and catalogue entry, in three groups by the licence of its source, with its threshold in our own words and the source it is cited to. All are drafts pending review; a definition shows as reviewed only when both a clinical and a coding approval are recorded. Default set library_default_set@1.1.

Local criteria: site choices among published definitions and named local variants of the side-panel definitions, each with a change record, two approvals and an outcome preview.

Coder worklist

Setting: show extended capabilities on clinician screens

Current on clinician screens: Off (default) When on, findings from extended definitions appear on the side panel and the per-note screen under their own heading, after the core findings. Off or on, every check runs and replays the same, and the coder view shows both groups. The guided demo's four cases are unaffected.

CDI or coding staff can change this setting: switch the demo user.

Licence status

Thresholds are stated in our own words. Verbatim text is kept only from U.S. government works and openly licensed (CC BY) sources, with the attribution the licence asks for; copyrighted guidelines are cited by title, body and year, with a locator. No endorsement by the cited bodies is implied. This is not legal advice: counsel should review before commercial release.

Cancer-treatment adverse-event grading scale (NCI CTCAE): off by default

CTCAE grades describe adverse events in people receiving cancer treatment, usually in trials; they are not diagnostic criteria, and several grades depend on the laboratory reference range or on clinical descriptors that are not encoded. Using them outside that setting is a local decision for the clinical reviewer.

Current: Off (default) When on, grading entries are shown only as "another published definition gives …" or as values needing clinical judgement; they never raise a "not stated" item.

CDI or coding staff can change this setting. A clinician account records clinical reviews; a coding or documentation account records coding reviews: switch the demo user.

3 of 75 entries shown.

Heart failure acuity: indicators in the record (evidence only; acuity is a clinical judgement) front_hf_acuity_indicators@1.0 evidence_only Open licence (CC BY) Draft · pending review draft — pending clinical and coding review
Status
draft — pending clinical and coding review (draft)
Condition
Heart failure
Tier
evidence_only
Licence
Open licence (CC BY)
To confirm
  • To confirm with a clinician: the one-week weight comparison (a weight 5 to 9 days before the latest) and the 14-day window for documented symptoms are local conventions.
Source checked
opened on 2026-11-14: Opened the editorial: decompensated heart failure is described as needing escalated care or rescue therapy; it gives no natriuretic peptide cut-off, so none is shown.
Use here
evidence only (not executed)
Edition
2026

The second universal definition of heart failure (2026). What's new?

front_hf_acuity_indicators@1.0

In our words: Acuity (acute, chronic, acute on chronic) is a clinical judgement. Documented symptoms, natriuretic peptide results, weights and intravenous diuretic orders are shown for review; no threshold is applied and no acuity is concluded.

Biegus J, Ponikowski P (ESC Heart Failure) (2026) · section on decompensated heart failure · source

open licence: CC BY 4.0, attribution: Biegus J, Ponikowski P. The second universal definition of heart failure (2026). What's new? ESC Heart Fail 2026;13(5):xvag240. doi:10.1093/eschf/xvag240. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution licence. No endorsement by the cited bodies is implied.

See also:
  • Second universal definition of heart failure, Walsh MN et al. (Eur Heart J) (2026) — consensus document, not opened; licence not checked

Review

Reviewed only when both a clinical review and a coding review are recorded as approved.

Clinical review: none recorded yet.

Coding review: none recorded yet.

Heart failure type by ejection fraction (four categories, 2021 universal definition as restated in 2022) front_hf_ef_type@1.0 judgement Open licence (CC BY) Draft · pending review draft — pending clinical and coding review
Status
draft — pending clinical and coding review (draft)
Condition
Heart failure
Tier
judgement
Licence
Open licence (CC BY)
To confirm
  • To confirm with a clinician: the boundary wording at exactly 40%. This file reads reduced as 40% or lower (the openly licensed source); the federal cross-check says below 40%. A reported 40% is shown as reduced.
  • To confirm with a clinician: the improved-category baseline rule. The baseline is the first earlier ejection fraction of 40% or lower on file and the comparison value is the latest; another reading (lowest earlier value, or the value just before the latest) can give a different answer.
  • To confirm with a clinician: whether the 2021 categories should stay the shown edition now that a 2026 edition reportedly drops fixed cut-offs between reduced and preserved.
Source checked
opened on 2026-11-14: Opened the article page (section 1.3, New universal definition). Each threshold checked against the page: 40% or lower; 41% to 49%; 50% or higher; improved = baseline 40% or lower, a rise of at least 10 points and a second value above 40%. All four match this file's thresholds and boundary tests.
Use here
front condition (side panel options)
Edition
2022
Why not executable
The 2021 categories are shown as the 2021 edition. A 2026 second universal definition reportedly drops fixed cut-offs between reduced and preserved ejection fraction while keeping the improved category (summary of an openly licensed editorial; the consensus document itself was not opened). Clinical decision needed before release. A federal cross-check (NHLBI, 2022) describes reduced ejection fraction as below 40%, not 40% or lower: the boundary at exactly 40% differs between sources.

Clinical implications of the universal definition for the prevention and treatment of heart failure

front_hf_ef_type@1.0

In our words: Reduced ejection fraction: 40% or lower. Mildly reduced: 41% to 49%. Preserved: 50% or higher. Improved: an earlier ejection fraction of 40% or lower, a later one above 40%, and a rise of at least 10 points. (2021 edition, as restated in an openly licensed 2022 paper.)

HFrEF, LVEF ≤ 40%

Chandramouli C, Stewart S, Almahmeed W, Lam CSP (Clinical Cardiology) (2022) · Section 1.3 'New universal definition' (classification by left ventricular ejection fraction) · source

open licence: CC BY 4.0, attribution: Chandramouli C, Stewart S, Almahmeed W, Lam CSP. Clinical implications of the universal definition for the prevention and treatment of heart failure. Clin Cardiol 2022;45(Suppl 1):S2-S12. doi:10.1002/clc.23842. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. No endorsement by the cited bodies is implied.

See also:
  • Universal definition and classification of heart failure, Bozkurt B et al. (J Card Fail / Eur J Heart Fail) (2021), classification by ejection fraction — society consensus (no open licence seen); numbers restated; text not reproduced
  • Second universal definition of heart failure, Walsh MN et al. (Eur Heart J) (2026) — newer edition, not opened; reportedly drops fixed cut-offs between reduced and preserved; numbers not used
  • Accelerating heart failure research, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (2022), description of reduced ejection fraction · link — federal cross-check only; describes reduced ejection fraction as below 40% (boundary at exactly 40% differs)
  • ICD-10-CM FY2027 tabular list and index, CDC National Center for Health Statistics (2026), I50.2-, I50.3- · link — coder reference only; no index entry for mildly reduced or improved ejection fraction

Review

Reviewed only when both a clinical review and a coding review are recorded as approved.

Clinical review: none recorded yet.

Coding review: none recorded yet.

Adult malnutrition: global consensus criteria (alternative definition; shown in the details, not executed) front_malnutrition_global_consensus@1.0 alternative Open licence (CC BY) Draft · pending review draft — pending clinical and coding review
Status
draft — pending clinical and coding review (draft)
Condition
Malnutrition
Tier
alternative
Licence
Open licence (CC BY)
To confirm
  • To confirm with a clinician and the dietitian lead: whether this definition is shown at all to VA users, who were trained on the US consensus characteristics; it is shown only in the library and, with extended capabilities on, as another published definition in the card's details.
Source checked
opened on 2026-11-14: Opened Tables 3 and 4: weight loss over 5% within 6 months or over 10% beyond; intake 50% or less of requirement for over a week or any reduction for over 2 weeks; severe stage over 10% within 6 months or over 20% beyond, body-mass index below 18.5 under 70 or below 20 at 70 and over. All match the paraphrase.
Use here
alternative definition (shown, not executed)
Edition
2019

GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition: a consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community

front_malnutrition_global_consensus@1.0

In our words: Global consensus: at least one physical finding (weight loss over 5% in 6 months or over 10% over a longer period; low body-mass index; reduced muscle mass) and one cause (eating half or less of needs for over a week, or less than usual for over 2 weeks, or a condition affecting absorption; inflammation). Severe: weight loss over 10% in 6 months or over 20% over a longer period, or a body-mass index below 18.5 under age 70 or below 20 at 70 and over.

Cederholm T et al. (Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle) (2019) · Tables 3 and 4 · source

open licence: CC BY 4.0, attribution: Cederholm T et al. GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition - A consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2019;10(1):207-217. doi:10.1002/jcsm.12383. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. No endorsement by the cited bodies is implied.

See also:
  • GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition, Cederholm T et al. (Clin Nutr; JPEN) (2019) — original publications; no open licence seen; not quoted

Review

Reviewed only when both a clinical review and a coding review are recorded as approved.

Clinical review: none recorded yet.

Coding review: none recorded yet.