Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


20:00 UTC on Tuesday 23 June 2020 - 90 minutes.


  • Bindings to FHIR Clinical Resources (e.g. value set bindings)

Meeting Details


Phone: See for available phone numbers (meeting id 242-348-6949)

Chat: #snomed-hl7-fhir

Discussion items



OwnerNotes & Actions
1Welcome and introductions5

Recording + Notes.


Summary of previous week (TS) and previous TB

3Future meetings5

HL7 Baltimore September 18 - 25 Fully Virtual. Connectathon 9 -11 Sept.

21 July DK proposal to add Language item to Terminology Track: Advertisement of proposed extension - Designation extension also use of token (a la Peter Jordan ) in HTTP GET request eg designation=|281000210109

"Discussion of an extension proposed by the SNOMED on FHIR workgroup to support the querying and returning of designations according to their 'context of use' such as clinical speciality language, national dialects (eg US / GB English) and Patient Friendly Terms. The proposal is intended to be terminology agnostic, and In SNOMED CT this feature is expressed via Language Reference Sets"

SI Business 6 - 7 + Expo October 7 - 9 . Confirmed fully virtual.

Nov 17 - 20 FHIR Dev Days also virtual.

4FHIR Shorthand10Daniel Karlsson

DK reported solving problems through cross-referencing see see output zip here.

TODO: Daniel to overwrite so we can see that being built by the HL7 build tooling.

5Revisit Immunization5


April 14:

A generic SNOMED CT concept for "key worker" (or just "target population") is needed to state an immunization reason, or a reason for an immunization recommendation.

6Specimen30Riki Merrick

Specimen binding. Update from HL7 Specimen Project Group by Riki Merrick (and offer to review this group's work!)

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.

7Implementation Guide31

The Implementation Guide is now building fine. Please everyone have a look and share comments.

8Exemplar Profile

Publishing Profiles

  • Wrapped by implementation guide - in this case
  • Value set publish to a live SI hosted Snowstorm instance. Alternatively Michael Lawley has offered to host.
  • Additional hosting on Simplifier (STU3, not yet R4 - January?)
  • Suggestion to review work already done to ensure R4 compatibility
  • Would value sets also be published as reference sets? Maintain via Refset tool and published in MLDS. Note: UK experienced substantial 'getting off the ground' effort in this area. Sweden have worked through ~10 (will request promotion of content to International Edition where appropriate).
  • HL7 FHIR Registry?
  • Option to have multiple profiles available at the same time using slicing.
  • Chance to do some technical work at HL7 San Antonio

Options for Profile discussion:


Allergy Intolerance (DK)Condition
Medication distinct from previous work on MedicationRequest etc (PWI)Vital Signs (DK)Procedure (see also CarePlan (activity.detail.code) - KR)



Observation Interpretation

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:

  1. Where we only use the code field for clinical content (plus the administrative fields)
  2. Where we restrict the code field to atomic values and all other resource fields should also be populated. Note that this does not solve the role group problem.

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?)

  • Build implementation guide
  • Setup FHIR server with relevant valusets

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 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?

  • Daniel Karlsson to try loading existing Allergy Intolerance profiles into Forge R4. The STU3 profiles loaded fine in Forge R4 as just STU3 profiles. There are almost no changes between STU3 and R4 for AllergyIntolerance, so by manually changing the XML files from "3.0.1" to "4.0.0" the files showed as R4 profiles with no errors displayed. Files uploaded to profile page.
  • Rob Hausam to take Observation questions to OO group, see Observation binding

RH: Suggestion that "published" valuesets would be read-only.

9Next meeting5

4 August

Meeting Files

  File Modified
PDF File FHIR FactSheet-Web-Final.pdf 2020-Jul-21 by Peter G. Williams