UPDATE   

These pages are currently transitioning into the SNOMED GitHub pages.  See https://github.com/IHTSDO/snomed-ig

HL7 currently provide a daily build view of that which can be seen here:  http://build.fhir.org/ig/IHTSDO/snomed-ig/

Assumptions and Audience

Introducing SNOMED to a FHIR audience and FHIR to a SNOMED Audience!Explanation of 4 levels of binding.

Code, Coding, Codeable Concept as specific to SNOMED CT (include link to introduction and points about display terms & multiple languages).

Introduction to using SNOMED with FHIR

• Link to benefits of using SNOMED CT
• Interoperability (synergy in using two world leading standards).
• Distinction between Terminology Services and Binding 
• Linda Bird 's material on choices to be made in selecting elements eg conflict resolution due to overlapping semantics.

•  Peter G. Williams copy material from Linda's PPT

SNOMED specific behaviours

• Emphasise use of Code field.
• Links to other SNOMED using profiles (held elsewhere)
• Considerations that were made as part of these profiles
• Pull summary from Dion's validate code page

•  Peter G. Williamspull Dion's validate code work.

General Implementation Considerations

SNOMED specific behaviours

Implementing Terminology Services with SNOMED CT

FHIR Frequently Asked Questions

Working with Language Reference Sets

Design Notes specific to Client Applications

Option for "pass-through" terminology requests so that FHIR server acts as proxy for Terminology Server.   Operations such as Expand may need to make calls on to Terminology before collating results

.

SNOMED Specific profiles (clinical resources)

http://build.fhir.org/profiling.html

Conflicts & Specialisation within a Resource

Many resources specify a "code" element which is the obvious location for a SNOMED CT code and this should be used where feasible.  However, other fields may exist (often with multiple cardinality) that could potentially conflict or extend the meaning given by the code field.   For example, in the Procedure Resource as well as the code, a message can supply (potentially multiple) bodysite codeable concepts.

So where a body site is NOT a child of the body site specified in code, what behaviour is expected?

Comment - issues with lack of relationship grouping (eg device with bodysite where multiple exist) and inability to specify whether the site is being accessed in a direct or indirect manner.    We could, potentially, suggest enhancements to FHIR to bring its model into line with that of SNOMED to allow it to accurately state meaning using SNOMED CT concepts in an atomic manner, but what benefit would this give (plus ongoing maintenance overhead) when compared to using SNOMED CT in the first place?

Test Suites for using SNOMED with FHIR Servers

• Examples of REST calls and their expected results (using SNOMED where possible), with narrative including any associated business logic.   
• Be sure to make FHIR version and SNOMED CT Edition for each test clear
• Pick SNOMED concepts that aren't likely to be retired any time soon.   Some tests will be more vulnerable than others eg checking the number of concepts subsumed.
• Suggested to use and extend the test scripts used in previous Connectathons.
• Potential to save resources from "Postman" as an aide.

•  Peter Jordan please provide examples from previous events as discussed.
  
•  Peter Jordan  & Michael Lawley update on in-week discussion.
  

Terminology Binding

Test Suites for using SNOMED with FHIR Servers