20:00 UTC on Tuesday 22 May 2018 - 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
Summary of previous week:
|3||Update from HL7 Cologne||20|
Discussions around use of SNOMED CT in FHIR and renewed possibilities of a "free set" of codes used in "required" bindings. Jane is waiting for update from Graham G.
Terminfo project - original project will be retired, CDA guide has been published. Moving to collaborative effort with SNOMED International, with more official HL7 participation.
Update next week on proposed changes to Terminology Services.
Discussion on https://www.hl7.org/fhir/v3/NullFlavor/cs.html and whether null type values (eg UK's "Unknown Severity") should have their use dictated. RH Said the FHIR approach was to not represent unknown data ie leave field blank.
Note that the removals in the ECL for Condition.code were stated to avoid overlap with the Allergy resource ie to make the two valuesets disjoint.
Issue with how to specify laterality if an implementer is not capable of doing post-coordination.
Discussion on problem list for "code" element requested by suppliers.
Would be helpful to have access to real data in order to "sanity check" problems reported against the suggested binding. For example, suggestion to remove "Allergic reaction to substance", "Pseudoallergy to substance" and "Allergic disposition" from << Clinical Finding rather than "Hypersensitivity condition"
In terms of deliverable output going forward, we have a GitHub project that can contain profiles, for example these ones supplied by Daniel: https://github.com/IHTSDO/snomed-ig/tree/master/profiles/clinical/summary
|5||Profile for Specimen Resouce||10|
Specimen binding - follow up
Suggestion from Jim Case that the type attribute would be better bound to (< Substance OR < Morphologic Abnormality OR < Physical Object (or selection thereof)) rather than Specimen as it avoids any potential conflict with the other attributes and is effectively opening up post coordination, rather than sticking to a inherently restricted set of pre-coordinated concepts.
Similarly (Linda Bird), the method attribute is currently a selection of SNOMED CT concepts plus a V2 valueset.
Two main options:
Jim Case also suggested that using these decomposed fields would only be used outside of a SNOMED context. Otherwise could be achieved - (PWI: more safely due to MRCM) - with post coordinated. However (PWI notes): some members are some way off being able to use post-coordination and - at the same time - would experience restriction if limited to pre-coordinated content.
Suggestion (LB) for decomposition template that would describe the mapping from a post coordinated concepts into the various FHIR fields.
How do we produce and publish ValueSets?
Tuesday 5 June 2018
Next Resources to look at: Observation, Medication ← selected. Dion McMurtrie may have an interest here.
|No content found.|