Welcome and introductions

@Peter Williams

@Rob Hausam

Recording + Notes.

Note that this meeting will clash with the HL7 meeting in Cologne and the timings will not line up to allow a joint call. We agreed to proceed as planned, with expected reduced numbers.

Summary of previous week

@Peter Williams

@Rob Hausam

• 2018-05-08 - SNOMED on FHIR Meeting (TB)

Update from HL7 Discussions - Cologne

20

@Jane Millar

@Rob Hausam

JM: HL7 suggestion that some ValueSets be required as an aid to interoperability (in Normative Ballot). However, these ValueSets would need to be "Free and freely accessible" and therefore unable to use SNOMED as part of that particular specification. LOINC most obvious alternative. SNOMED could still be used in this situation, but this would require mapping since the LOINC codes would still be required.

RH: This would relate to "code" elements which always have required bindings ie FHIR ValueSets already exist for those. FHIR not intending to specify any SNOMED Codes with binding strength further than "example" since SNOMED is not freely available.

http://theconcept.snomed.io/snomed-international-maintains-its-commitment-to-the-use-of-snomed-ct-through-broadened-implementation-approaches/

Vocab Group: Terminfo as distinct from SNOMED on FHIR. RH: 2015 Draft standard for trial use has now expired. Use of SNOMED in CDA, question whether specification can be "kept alive". HL7 would need to set up a new project in order to formally collaborate with SNOMED on FHIR (answers in next two weeks (Thursday)).

Main item for discussion

60

@Dion McMurtrie

SNOMED CT canonical CodeSystem resource

• Review and attempt to resolve detail questions

• Issue around extensions and what this CodeSystem resource actually represents

Current items

@Dion McMurtrie

• SNOMED CT "Universal" Edition

  • Definitely useful to have a catalogue of all concepts ever issued if not a proper edition which may be much harder?

  • Is this work for this group, or should this be handed on to a more appropriate SI group?

• Check and fix ECL in the FHIR spec

  • Is there a way to systematically identify all ECL expressions in the FHIR spec?

  • If we run these through validation is there appetite/volunteers to review and fix them as feedback to the spec?

  • Is there a way to integrate ECL validation into the FHIR spec tooling to prevent recurrence?

• Normal form and normal form terse definition

• @Former user (Deleted) to progress defining Terse Normal Form with the Family of Languages group (@Rob Hausam confirms needed for July)

  • SLPG agreed that the Languages group is not the appropriate forum for this definition. Instead, we believe this should be defined in the DL subgroup of the Modelling Advisory Group.

  • Also agreed that the terms that need defining are "Canonical Normal Form" (which is terse by definition) and "Necessary Long Normal Form"

Review of "Using SNOMED with FHIR" page

All participants are invited to review this local copy of that page.

Review of TS Collaborative Work

@Dion McMurtrie

Collaborative Work

Any other business

@Peter Williams

$validate-code behaviour

Next Meeting

Tuesday 29 May

@Peter Williams will be away.