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

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 25 Next »

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 
  • A summary of using SNOMED CT with FHIR can be found here:
  • Introduction for specific stakeholders
    • Developers
    • System Architects

General Implementation Considerations

  • Is the goal (a) homogenous population of resources or (b) permissive guidance to cater for greater flexibility?
  • Do we restrict value sets to ensure that the same information cannot be represented in 2 different ways
  • The same semantics can’t be included in 2 data elements
  • The same semantics can’t be included in 2 resources
  • How widely do we require/recommend SNOMED CT is used across each resource (e.g. vital signs, statuses)
  • Which of these are potentially in scope?
  • Restricting value sets to specific subhierarchies
  • New value sets for elements not using SNOMED CT
  • Restricting cardinalities to reduce ambiguity
  • Splicing to align with SNOMED CT concept model
  • Mapping FHIR value sets to SNOMED CT (e.g. status)
  • Defining SNOMED CT templates to support transformations

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
  • Validate code (Valuset and CodeSystem)
  • Expand (Valueset)
  • Lookup (CodeSystem)
  • Search
  • Terminology Capabilities Resource (check latest release of HAPI for support?).

Implementing Terminology Services with SNOMED CT

Frequently Asked Questions

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)

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?

Options for Handling Semantic Overlap

The following options could be considered to handle the semantic overlap between, say, Condition code and bodySite:

  1. Restrict bodySite to [0..0] and require finding site in code
  2. BodySite can only be populated if code has no finding site
  3. BodySite (if exists) must be a specialization of finding site
  4. BodySite must always be a specialization or self of finding site
  5. Only allow conditions with no finding sites and include bodySite
  6. Any condition and any bodySite

Existing Documentation to Pull In Using SNOMED CT with FHIR

SNOMED CT canonical CodeSystem resource

Comparable Implementation Guides

See also

Child Documents

Feedback for HL7

19 March 2019

These two pages seem to be very similar?

Publishing Notes

4 June - group agreed to target R4 in the first instance but to indicate any future changes inline.   Also (PJ) suggested section on major changes from STU3 to R4 where relevant to SNOMED eg $compose is now $find-matches

2 July - question over specific content for different stakeholders and how we present that - separate pages for developers (details) vs architect (integration, general 'use' of terminology services eg off the shelf solution.  Why use the FHIR API at all?) vs business level?

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.
  • Would be beneficial if SNOMED International server could use test script resources in a generic way as part of unit / integration testing.
  • Dion McMurtrie Is any test related tooling that you've created re-usable?
  • Peter Jordan  & Michael Lawley update on in-week discussion.  Update:  IG command line tooling having issues building SNOMED IG.   RobH says he's got a fix for that - will commit.
  • Rob Hausam commit fix for SNOMED Implementation Guide (issue with NPM name)

No files shared here yet.

  • No labels