This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "2017-03-14 TermInfo Project Call"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* Walk-through of 5 step value set review process as described in the binding document. . | * Walk-through of 5 step value set review process as described in the binding document. . | ||
| − | * Disussion on Condition resource | + | * Disussion on Condition resource. Similar to Clinical Finding hierarchy in SNOMED CT, but with Condition being somewhat broader in semantic scope - ref definition on page 13. |
| − | ** Clinical status – discussions | + | ** Clinical status – discussions on process of defining Value sets in FHIR. Can SNOMED influence the outcome? |
| − | ** Severity –FHIR 3 points: mild, moderate, severe. SNOMED CT 5 points: mild, moderate, severe vs mild, mild to moderate, moderate, moderate to severe, severe | + | ** Severity –FHIR 3 points: mild, moderate, severe. SNOMED CT 5 points: mild, moderate, severe vs mild, mild to moderate, moderate, moderate to severe, severe. No unique defintions of how they can be used consistently. What strategy should be used in harmonizing value sets across FHIR and SNOMED CT. |
** Stage – limited staging concept in SNOMED CT. | ** Stage – limited staging concept in SNOMED CT. | ||
** Manifestational symptom – the same value set as Condition itself. Harmonize with definition of Condition itself? | ** Manifestational symptom – the same value set as Condition itself. Harmonize with definition of Condition itself? | ||
Latest revision as of 14:30, 20 March 2017
- Proposal to take turn on taking notes. Øyvind documents meeting.
- FHIR publishing – Rob demonstrated briefly tooling for publishing
Discussion on document "Using SNOMED CT with HL7 FHIR Resources".
- Update for SNOMED CT concept domain binding based on changes in the last version of FHIR.
- Representation for intentional value sets. Challenge with implementation of SCT Expression Constraint Language that can be used for describing queries for intentional value set definitions. Useful to know what limitation we have in this work for producing our value sets in FHIR. Example: how to express finding with explicit context but exclude where associated findings are an adminstrative status. Possible requirements for STU 4 to handle this should be identified. Linda provides examples.
- Walk-through of 5 step value set review process as described in the binding document. .
- Disussion on Condition resource. Similar to Clinical Finding hierarchy in SNOMED CT, but with Condition being somewhat broader in semantic scope - ref definition on page 13.
- Clinical status – discussions on process of defining Value sets in FHIR. Can SNOMED influence the outcome?
- Severity –FHIR 3 points: mild, moderate, severe. SNOMED CT 5 points: mild, moderate, severe vs mild, mild to moderate, moderate, moderate to severe, severe. No unique defintions of how they can be used consistently. What strategy should be used in harmonizing value sets across FHIR and SNOMED CT.
- Stage – limited staging concept in SNOMED CT.
- Manifestational symptom – the same value set as Condition itself. Harmonize with definition of Condition itself?
