Date
(Bratislava local time)
Attendees
Linda Bird, Dion McMurtrie, Jane Millar, Rob Hausam, Pim Volkert, Liara Tutina, Mikael Collin, Andrew Perry, Jeremy Rogers, Lotti Barlow, Ross Boswell, Monika Geletová, Patricia Khandlova, Libor Seidl, Agnieszka Suchodolska, Elaine Wooler, Yongsheng Gao, Peter G. Williams, Rory Davidson and others invited by their MF representative (Please notify lbi@snomed.org if you plan to attend).
Online / remote: Alexander Henket, Peter Jordan, and others invited by their MF representative (Please notify lbi@snomed.org if you plan to attend).
Objectives
- To plan, scope and progress collaborative work between SNOMED International Members relating to the use of SNOMED CT with HL7 FHIR
Discussion items
| Item | Description | Owner | Notes |
|---|
| 1 | Welcome, introductions and apologies | | - General introductions and welcome
|
| 2 | Review existing and planned work | | - Members to report on existing and planned work with using SNOMED in HL7 FHIR
- HL7 International and SNOMED International to report on existing and planned work with using SNOMED in HL7 FHIR
|
| 3 | Collaborative deliverables and plans | | - Discuss the proposed scope of collaborative deliverables, for example:
- What format will the deliverables take?
- Are we providing general guidance for SNOMED CT use, or specific guidance for each resource (or both)?
- Consider what existing or planned work can be leveraged
- Who will be doing (and coordinating) the collaborative work?
- Collaborative platforms for sharing the work as it progresses
- Communication and meeting requirements
|
| 4 | Implementation Guidance Principles | | - Discuss the principles we should follow in developing the collaborative deliverables.
- For example:
- Is the goal to provide homogeneous population of the resources for interoperability or permissive guidance to cater for a greater degree of localisation?
- Do we restrict value sets (in a computable way) to ensure that the same information cannot be represented in 2 different ways - for example:
- The same semantics can/can't be represented both precoordinated and in separate fields
- The same semantics can/can't be represented in more than one resource (e.g. Condition, Observation, Family History, Allergy Intolerance)
- How widely do we require/recommend SNOMED CT to be used across the data elements within each resource, versus permitting other code systems to be used? E.g. vital signs, statuses
- Which are the following are potentially in scope?
- Restricting existing SNOMED CT value sets already bound to a FHIR resource to subhierarchies that are more semantically appropriate to the relevant data element
- Defining new SNOMED CT value sets for data elements that do not currently use SNOMED CT
- Unless they have a required binding to another code system?
- Restricting the cardinality of data elements (e.g. body site) to reduce ambiguity
- Splicing data elements to more closely align with the SNOMED CT concept model (only where necessary to avoid ambiguity?)
- Providing mappings between FHIR value sets (e.g. statuses) and SNOMED CT codes (including context)
- Providing SNOMED CT expression templates to allow implementations to transform between different ways of populating the same semantics in a FHIR resource
|
| 5 | Progress work | | - Progress specific work related to SNOMED CT use in FHIR artifacts, for example the SNOMED CT Implementation Guide for the Observation Resource
|
| 6 | Next steps | | - Discuss next steps, including future meetings and work items
|
Meeting Files
No files shared here yet.
Previous Meetings
| Title | Creator | Modified |
|---|
| No content found. |