Can this specify standard `serviceType` codes?

[Mr0grog]

In the schedule section of the spec, the information around serviceType suggests that the example “can be used verbatim,” but doesn’t mandate any particular formats or codes. It also points to the FHIR docs for CodeableConcept for specifics.

It reads to me like a provider might be free to use whatever codings fit their existing system. I am currently working on COVID response tech for state governments, and it would be nice to be able to mandate at least:

• That the provider use the object-based coding field for each service type (and MAY use text in addition).

• That a COVID-19 immunization uses the coding:

  {
    "system": "http://fhir-registry.smarthealthit.org/CodeSystem/service-type",
    "code": "covid19-immunization",
    "display": "COVID-19 Immunization Appointment"
  }

  …from the example. (Optionally in addition to any other more local codings they choose.) This would help us have an actual, standardized way to identify these kinds of appointments across providers, which we do not currently have.

  I’m also not clear on whether that example is an actual, defined code anywhere (HL7 and FHIR are reasonably new to me, so I am almost certainly missing where information on what the http://fhir-registry.smarthealthit.org/CodeSystem/service-type system defines can be found — I’d appreciate any links to what I should be reading!).

[jmandel]

Thanks, this is a great point. I'll add a clarification that for COVID-19 immunization slots, the coding array needs to include the two specified values and MAY include additional Codings.

http://fhir-registry.smarthealthit.org is an identifier we use for standardized extensions and codings published by SMART Health IT; there's no published content at that domain (so indeed, if you de-reference it by, say, pasting it into a browser window, you won't find any definitions; that's something we might introduce, but shouldn't be a requirement for interop).