search

hl7au / au-fhir-base

AU Base FHIR Implementation Guide Source
38 stars 26 forks source link

r4-au-bodyStructure :: Porting au-bodySite (au-base-stu3) to au-bodyStructure (au-base-r4) #347

Closed udaychandrupatla closed 3 years ago

udaychandrupatla commented 4 years ago

While mapping BodySite.code.coding (au-bodySite {STU3}) to BodyStructure.location (au-bodyStructure {r4}), it has been observed there have been terminology binding change in STU3 au-bodySite from "required" to "extensible" in build versions (http://hl7.org.au/fhir/base/history.shtml)

http://hl7.org.au/fhir/base/2018Oct/StructureDefinition-au-bodysite.html (required) http://hl7.org.au/fhir/base/aubase1/StructureDefinition-au-bodysite.html (extensible)

The queries here are -

  1. Is the terminology binding change intentional
  2. When doing a pull request for r4 au-bodyStructure profile, which terminology binding to carry over from stu3 au-bodySite
udaychandrupatla commented 4 years ago

Since there was a terminology binding change occurred between the below STU3 versions - http://hl7.org.au/fhir/base/2018Oct/StructureDefinition-au-bodysite.html (required) http://hl7.org.au/fhir/base/aubase1/StructureDefinition-au-bodysite.html (extensible)

Kindly let me what is the right binding to be used for r4 au-bodyStructure profile (required or extensible)?

Regards, Uday

robeastwood-agency commented 4 years ago

Query whether 'extensible' is appropriate given that it forces coding to only be SNOMED CT. Suggest discussion as to whether SNOMED CT is the only appropriate code system to record body structure. Therefore, consider 'preferred' as an alternative.

davidmckillop commented 3 years ago

Other SNOMED binding in AU Base profiles are "(preferred)" and this aligns with HL7 AU design principles of providing guidance and not constraining - reiterated HL7 PA WG TC's in 2020. Hence recommend to change binding strength from "(extensible)" to "(preferred)".

davidmckillop commented 3 years ago

Any further issues relating to this GitHub ticket i.e. bindings, will be dealt with in GitHub #575 as a new value set needs to be developed to resolve the issue of having inactive codes in the HL7 FHIR core value set - raised in FHIR-29810.

dtr-agency commented 3 years ago

This issue on location terminology binding and the other issue on the lack of location.qualifier terminology binding are not fully equivalent. This issue is concerned with the location element.

The binding on STU3 was set at required, the binding has been relaxed in R4 to be extensible. The query is should the SNOMED CT binding be extensible or required in AU Base BodyStructure. The extensible binding strength is accepted. This issue as closed as resolved.