Date/Time

20:00 UTC on Tuesday 24 April 2018 - 90 minutes.

Objectives

Bindings to FHIR Clinical Resources (e.g. value set bindings)

Meeting Details

Online: https://snomed.zoom.us/my/snomedhl7

Phone: See https://zoom.us/zoomconference for available phone numbers (meeting id 242-348-6949)

Chat: https://chat.snomedtools.org/channel/snomed-fhir
(instructions and guide here - Getting Started with Rocket Chat)

Attendees

@Rob Hausam, @Peter Williams, @Jeremy Rogers (Unlicensed), @Andrew Perry (Unlicensed), @Former user (Deleted), @Guillermo Reynoso, @Jane Millar, @Peter Jordan (Unlicensed), @Yongsheng Gao

Apologies

@Former user (Deleted)

Meeting Recording

https://snomed.zoom.us/recording/share/9fxqQjFx1oQNArfCejWLyT8h9mAGM_SBH8D5LEmai-ywIumekTziMw

Discussion items

	Description	Mins	Owner	Notes & Actions

	Description	Mins	Owner	Notes & Actions
1	Welcome and introductions	5	@Peter Williams @Rob Hausam	Recording + Notes.
2	Summary of previous week	5	@Peter Williams @Rob Hausam	Summary of previous week: 2018-04-17 - SNOMED on FHIR Meeting (TS)
3	Profile for Specimen Resouce	60		Specimen binding Suggestion from @Jim Case that the type attribute would be better bound to (< Substance OR < Morphologic Abnormality OR < Physical Object (or selection thereof)) rather than Specimen as it avoids any potential conflict with the other attributes and is effectively opening up post coordination, rather than sticking to a inherently restricted set of pre-coordinated concepts. Similarly (@Former user (Deleted)), the method attribute is currently a selection of SNOMED CT concepts plus a V2 valueset. Two main options: Use Specimen hierarchy for "type" (suggested new .code element) and then constrain what can appear in the other fields (and how we deal with conflict!). This concept could also be a post coordinated expression in the "type" attribute (@Jim Case noted that some aspects - like the shipping container - may not be characteristics intrinsic to the specimen). Specify appropriate bindings for individual elements. @Jim Case also suggested that using these decomposed fields would only be used outside of a SNOMED context. Otherwise could be achieved - (PWI: more safely due to MRCM) - with post coordinated. However (PWI notes): some members are some way off being able to use post-coordination and - at the same time - would experience restriction if limited to pre-coordinated content. @Rob Hausam Solicit opinion / Create tracker item to take forward the 3 suggested (see bold items) added to Specimen binding page. FOA HL7's Orders and observations group. Suggested work to look through the V2 value set here to collect a set of SNOMED sub-hierarchies that would cover same. (NHS will get to this resource at some point!). Note that advertising provenance of each ValueSet would give some confidence the quality. Also document rational for inclusions. @Peter Williams 434711009 \|Specimen container (physical object)\| appears insufficient for binding to Specimen container. Investigate possibilities for development in this area to better support FHIR (Pathology working group? PALM). Also additives potentially more interesting.
4	Condition Resource	TBD		Condition Resource All please review the above page
5	ValueSets	10		How do we produce and publish ValueSets? Tools? Question for @Daniel Karlsson - Were you suggesting that we systematically replace HL7 ValueSets with SNOMED CT equivalents? Or are there places where ValueSets are required that aren't currently specified?
6	Next meeting	5

HTTP Status 429 – Too Many Requests

2018-04-24 - SNOMED on FHIR Meeting (TB)