20:00 UTC on Tuesday 17 March 2020 - 90 minutes.
- Bindings to FHIR Clinical Resources (e.g. value set bindings)
|Owner||Notes & Actions|
|1||Welcome and introductions||5|
Recording + Notes.
Summary of previous week (TS) and previous TB
SNOMED International Business Meeting April 5 - 8 SNOMED on FHIR meeting Sunday 5 April - CANCELLED
San Antonio HL7 Meetings + Connectathon May 16 -17 (Go no go early next week)
FHIR DevDays - June 16-18, 2020 Cleveland, OH (Go no go May 10?)
HL7 Plenary Baltimore September (TBC)
SI Business + Expo October
|4||Follow up on Blood Pressure.||10|
Is the "vital signs" scope too limited?
Distinction being made between "Vital Signs" blood pressure and general blood pressures.
No conclusion reached on "panel codes". Compromise to use whatever is recorded on the system and where none available use a high level concept.
Update 17 March: DK - NHS Limiting Scope, any update? Answer: No. Decided to transmit all blood pressures and other < 248326004 |Body measure (observable entity)| (blood pressure is not a body measure!), but only those that met the FHIR binding would have the LOINC code and relevant category.
DK Both FHIR and SNOMED have reasonably elaborate models for dealing with these which creates "interesting" opportunities for binding discussions.
Discussion on why Specimen (which - as an industry - has been around forever) is only at maturity level 2. Perhaps there's a lack of production implementations. DK: Specimen is a potential candidate for a SOF Published Profile.
The Implementation Guide is now building fine. Please everyone have a look and share comments. http://build.fhir.org/ig/IHTSDO/snomed-ig/index.html
|7||Cancer Disease Status|
Query about qualifier values used. Would it be better to use < 418138009 |Patient condition finding (finding)| ? (JR suggested immediate children ie "<!" rather than descendants)
See also 373117000 |Pathology examination findings indeterminate (finding)| (child of 250537006 |Histopathology finding (finding)|)
Options for Profile discussion:
Notes 26 Feb: UK working on pathology reporting - diagnostic / observation.
Suggestion that we try out two types of profile, both of which avoid issues of conflict between fields within the information model:
28 May: Plan to publish profile for the October conference (8 sessions + working between meetings. Completion for review Tues 14 October (or earlier since we'll need time to complete the IG?)
Tooling for profiles: Forge (.NET) is now R4
14 Jan 2020: Update from Rob on his progress with a new FHIR Template infrastructure. Required migrating/juggling what we had already built on older infrastructure. Sits under our implementation guide materials at build.fhir.org/ig/IHTSDO/snomed-ig/branches/new-template/ as Option 6: SNOMED Specific Profiles
Differential Table view shows the difference between the parent resource and our SNOMED-specific further profiling of it.
Discussion around practicalities of handling bindings where the ECL isn't very pretty, but the enumerated membership list could change very frequently e.g. a list of codes for vaccine preparations (or procedures) that are specifically relevant to some national childhood immunisation programme, and which can therefore change monthly as new vaccine preparations become available. Preferred implementation solution would be for suppliers to be able to consume ECL, however complex.
Discussion about what kind of separation should exist between the Implementation Guide (which should list things we think everybody should be doing in some certain way) and any more discursive musings that have have not reached that level of consensus or experience.
Thoughts on whether the IG should be balloted, and how to assess the maturity of any of it? Should each SNOMEDonFHIR published profile have its own (1-5) maturity metric stated?
RH: Suggestion that "published" valuesets would be read-only.