search

ahdis / ch-emed-pmp

FHIR Implementation Guide
1 stars 0 forks source link

MTP validation inconsistency #30

Closed arhuberg closed 1 year ago

arhuberg commented 1 year ago

Executed the validator against an MTP...

One of the warnings found was: "The display \"Medication treatment plan.brief\" is not a valid display for the code {http://loinc.org}77604-7 - should be one of ['Medication treatment plan.brief Document', 'Med tx plan.brief Doc'

Corrected the issue, and when running the validator on the new document we see "Does not match slice 'treatmentPlan' (discriminator: code.coding.where((system = 'http://loinc.org') and (code = '77604-7') and (display = 'Medication treatment plan.brief')).exists())"

Observed similar behavior with the PADV.

arhuberg commented 1 year ago

mtp-validation-before.zip mtp-validation-after.zip

qligier commented 1 year ago

Yep, there are multiple places in the profile where the display is not part of "official" displays, as per the SNOMED CT/LOINC version loaded by the FHIR validator. @ziegm Should we fix these in the profile?

ziegm commented 1 year ago

@oliveregger shouldn't it be solved in the validator?

oliveregger commented 1 year ago

this warnings can't be removed from the validato.

either the profiles are adapted, and if not possible (the display names were taken from the IHE specification) we have to live with the warnings.

arhuberg commented 1 year ago

Which is the correct value for this particular item?

'Medication treatment plan.brief' or 'Medication treatment plan.brief Document'?

Is it the IHE value or the FHIR value? Why is IHE different? Is that intentional?

oliveregger commented 1 year ago

For the validation you can turn off the terminology server with the option txServer set to n/a, then it will not produce those warnings.

ziegm commented 1 year ago

this warnings can't be removed from the validato.

either the profiles are adapted, and if not possible (the display names were taken from the IHE specification) we have to live with the warnings.

Opened an issue to relax the cardinality (no fixedValues in patternCodeableConcepts): https://github.com/hl7ch/ch-emed/issues/194

oliveregger commented 1 year ago

a) use the official display names in the specificatin if possible b) don't use the display text for the pattern or fixedCodeableConcept, leave the warnings to the terminology service.

telco 18.1.2022: support this change in ch-emed