Welcome and introductions

5

Peter Williams

Rob Hausam

Recording + Notes.

Summary of previous week (TS) and previous TB

5

Peter Williams

Rob Hausam

2019-02-12 - SNOMED on FHIR Meeting (TS)

2019-02-05 - SNOMED on FHIR Meeting (TB)

Face to face meeting at the April Conference

5

Jane Millar

Peter Williams

Sunday 7 April 13:30 - 17:00 UTC

Agenda: 2019-04-07 - SNOMED on FHIR Meeting (TS & TB)

From Bruce Goldberg: "It might be useful for the Allergy CRG  to be part of these discussions. I am going to be holding a ½ day Allergy CRG meeting during the London conference. Would it be helpful to start a discussion there and if so, who can attend?"

Peter Jordan (Unlicensed) for NZ

Deliverables for April Conference & ongoing interaction with wider HL7 projects.

10

Request received for documentation of progress and process.

Sharing our output with HL7 - specific output or questions for Rob?

Split: What needs to be addressed by SI and what should be passed over to HL7? Staged / Iterative approach suggested. Severities currently green - shall we start there.

Communicating this to: GG (if we go to Patient Care, it would need context supplied which RH could give). 3rd option is FHIR Infrastructure Work Group. Agreed GG in first instance. HTA is considered to work at a more strategic level.

RH suggested mapping based on the stated definition of the code in FHIR ie where no strict definition is given then a strict lexical match is sufficient, but where full definition is given our mapping should be commensurately specific.

DK: We should include (consider) previous mapping work done by LB and GG - FHIR Expression Templates. So individual value mappings exist within the context of a wider information model mapping.

Free SNOMED CT Set for FHIR

20

Jane Millar

Jeremy Rogers (Unlicensed)

Daniel Karlsson

Free SNOMED CT set for FHIR

• Are the mappings suggested complete and ready as a recommendation?

Exemplar Profile

20

Daniel Karlsson

Jeremy Rogers (Unlicensed)

Publishing Profiles

• Wrapped by implementation guide - in this case https://github.com/IHTSDO/snomed-ig

• Value set publish to a live SI hosted Snowstorm instance. Alternatively michael lawley has offered to host.

• Additional hosting on Simplifier (STU3, not yet R4 - January?)

• Suggestion to review work already done to ensure R4 compatibility

• Would value sets also be published as reference sets? Maintain via Refset tool and published in MLDS. Note: UK experienced substantial 'getting off the ground' effort in this area. Sweden have worked through ~10 (will request promotion of content to International Edition where appropriate).

• HL7 FHIR Registry?

• Option to have multiple profiles available at the same time using slicing.

• Chance to do some technical work at HL7 San Antonio

Options for Profile discussion:

Notes 26 Feb: UK working on pathology reporting - diagnostic / observation.

Suggestion that we try out two types of profile, both of which avoid issues of conflict between fields within the information model:

1. Where we only use the code field for clinical content (plus the administrative fields)

2. Where we restrict the code field to atomic values and all other resource fields should also be populated. Note that this does not solve the role group problem.

Allergies

X

Daniel Karlsson

Revisit any outstanding questions on Allergies.

Vital Signs

X

Daniel Karlsson

Vital Signs Resource

Jeremy's work to compare Vital signs profile and SNOMED Subhierarchy - issues with eg blood pressure. Complex expression constraints available which cover the use of observables by the NHS(UK). Mapping to LOINC codes.

See Spreadsheet attached to: SNOMED on FHIR Meeting (TB) - Tuesday 21 August 2018

Issues / Discussion :

• Normative vs. descriptive purpose - 1, 2, or 3 profiles?

• Unresolved modeling issues

v3.0.1

ProcedureRequest

ReferralRequest

v3.4.0 (publication Aug 19?)

ServiceRequest

X

Daniel Karlsson

Neither of these exist in the FHIR 3.0.1 Spec. Rob Hausam

http://build.fhir.org/servicerequest.html → ServiceRequest

Questions:

• What determines which FHIR resource to use: the location of the data item in the sending system’s information model, or the semantics of the particular code regardless of where it was found? Some hybrid of both?

• If the resource to be used is determined at least partly by the location in the sending information model, how does a requesting system cope with the fact that different implementations (or different users of the same implementation) both can and do secrete essentially the same clinical info in very different parts of the host information model?

Next meeting

5

Tuesday 26 March 2019