This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "FHIR Vocabulary binding for Authors"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
** v3 value sets can be used if appropriate | ** v3 value sets can be used if appropriate | ||
** the binding strength should be at the most required | ** the binding strength should be at the most required | ||
| − | ** LOINC value sets can at the most be preferred | + | *** LOINC value sets can at the most be preferred |
| + | *** SNOMED CT value sets can at the most be example | ||
** mapping can be performed but is not required | ** mapping can be performed but is not required | ||
Latest revision as of 05:01, 6 July 2015
Unsorted rules
- if the type of the element is "code"
- the value set should be defined as part of FHIR.
- the binding strength should be required
- codes should be mapped to v2 and/or v3 if equivalent concepts exist in v3
- If the type of the element is "coding" or "CodeableConcept"
- the value set should not include codes defined as part of FHIR; the codes should be drawn from v2 tables or v3 code systems, or external vocabularies (anything listed here: http://hl7-fhir.github.io/terminologies-systems.html)
- v3 value sets can be used if appropriate
- the binding strength should be at the most required
- LOINC value sets can at the most be preferred
- SNOMED CT value sets can at the most be example
- mapping can be performed but is not required
notes:
- the rules differ depending on the underlying data type. The build tool won't let bindings cross data types
- the binding strength limitations for Coding/CodeableConcept do not apply to implementation guides (e.g. realm specific etc)
- for exemptions to these rules, consult MnM or Vocab for approval
- there are many legacy valuesets for Coding/CodeableConcept that are defined in FHIR itself, in violation of the above rule. Replacing these with external content is an ongoing task
