2016-07-06 - SLPG Meeting

Welcome, introductions and apologies

@Former user (Deleted)

Agenda review

@Former user (Deleted)

Review agenda for today's meeting

Recap of last meeting

@Former user (Deleted)

STEP 1 - Convert SNOMED CT Expression Template into FHIR Structure Definition (for use as Target of Mapping)

CONDITION RESOURCE

• SNOMED CT Expression Template

[[ [1..1] @findingWithExplicitContext ]]:

#[1..2] @RGa { 246090004 |Associated finding| = ([[ [0..1] @associatedFinding ]]:

#[0..1] @RGb { 246112005 |Severity| = [[ [0..1] @severity]],

363698007 |Finding site| = [[ [0..1] @findingSite]] })

408732007 |Subject relationship context| = 410604004 |Subject of record|,

408731000 |Temporal context| = [[ [1..1] @temporalContext ]],

408729009 |Finding context| = [[ [1..1] @findingContext ]] }

• FHIR Structure Definition

SCT_ConditionTemplate: SNOMEDCTExpressionTemplate

findingWithExplicitContext [1]: Coding

group [1..2]: RelationshipGroupElement

associatedFinding [1]: Coding

group [0..1]: RelationshipGroupElement

severity [0..1]: Coding

findingSite [0..1]: Coding

subjectRelationship [1]: Coding = 410604004 |Subject of record|

temporalContext [1]: Coding

findingContext [1]: Coding

STEP 2 - Define Mapping Rules from Source Structure (FHIR Resource) to Target Structure (SNOMED CT Expression Template)

SOURCE STRUCTURE

Condition: Resource

code [1]: CodeableConcept (coding [1..*] - system, version, code, display, userSelected [0..1] - text [0..1])

category [0..1]: CodeableConcept (values: complaint | symptom | finding | diagnosis)

clinicalStatus [0..1]: code (values: active | relapse | remission | resolved)

verificationStatus [1]: code (values: provisional | differential | confirmed | refuted | entered-in-error | unknown)

severity [0..1]: CodeableConcept

bodySite [0..1]: CodeableConcept

TARGET STRUCTURE

SCT_ConditionTemplate: SNOMEDCTExpressionTemplate

findingWithExplicitContext [1]: CodeableConcept

group [1..2]: RelationshipGroupElement

associatedFinding [1]: CodeableConcept

group [0..1]: RelationshipGroupElement

severity [0..1]: CodeableConcept

findingSite [0..1]: CodeableConcept

subjectRelationship [1]: CodeableConcept = 410604004 |Subject of record|

temporalContext [1]: CodeableConcept

findingContext [1]: CodeableConcept

RULES

rule_1: for  source.code as code where verificationStatus != "entered-in-error" then {

rule_1a: for code where code in memberOf("http://snomed.info/sct?fhir_vs=isa/404684003") make target.findingWithExplicitContext = 413350009 |Finding with explicit context|, target.group as groupA then {

rule_1aa: for code make groupA.associatedFinding = code

rule_1ab: for code where severity in memberOf("http://snomed.info/sct?fhir_vs=isa/272141005") OR findingSite in memberOf("http://snomed.info/sct?fhir_vs=isa/123037004) make groupA.group as groupB then {

rule_1aba: for source.severity as sev where severity in memberOf("http://snomed.info/sct?fhir_vs=isa/272141005") make groupB.severity = sev

rule_1abb: for source.bodySite as bs where findingSite in memberOf("http://snomed.info/sct?fhir_vs=isa/123037004) make groupB.findingSite = bs }

rule_1ac: for code make groupA.subjectRelationship = 410604004 |Subject of record|

rule_1ad: for code make groupA.temporalContext = 410512000 |Current or specified time|

rule_1ae: for source.clinicalStatus as cs, source.verificationStatus as vs  make groupA.findingContext as fc then {

rule_1aea: for vs make fc.code = translate ('status-to-findingContext-map', cs, vs)

 rule_1aeb: for vs make fc.system = "http://snomed.info/"

 rule_1aec: for vs make fc.display = "http://snomed.info/sct?lookupPT(coding.code, 900000000000509007)

} }

  rule_1b: for code where code in memberOf("http://snomed.info/sct?fhir_vs=isa/413350009 ") make target.findingWithExplicitContext = code then {

rule_1ba:

} }

Outstanding question - Q1

@Former user (Deleted)

Do we need to support naming of SNOMED CT Relationship Groups within the SNOMED CT Expression Template syntax? For example: [[ .... ]]: @RelationshipGroupName { .......}

• Note: This requirement comes from the need for a stable name for each relationshipgroup, in the FHIR Structure Definition used to represent the SNOMED Expression Template that is the target of a mapping (examples above).

• A possible alternative would be to not include relationship group names in the template, and instead rely on a reproducible approach to automatically generating these names (e.g. RG1, RG1.1, RG1.2, RG2, RG2.1). However, because these names are used in the mapping code, we would need to ensure that they are absolutely stable - so given this, is this approach appropriate?

Outstanding question - Q2

@Former user (Deleted)

What syntax should we use to define cardinality constraints?

1. On a focus concept, an attribute or an attribute value - e.g. in the relevant slot [[ [1..*] < 123456 @slotName ]]

2. On a relationship group - e.g. 123456 |concept|: #[1..*] { .......}

   • Note: The syntax must clearly indicate that the cardinality on a relationship group does not appear in the concrete expression that is generated when the expression template is populated. This is needed to distinguish an Expression Template (with relationship group cardinalities) from an Expression Constraint Template (for which the relationship group cardinalities do appear in the populated version of the template). In this example syntax, the "#" is being used to say "The following constraint needs to be removed when the template is populated."

Outstanding question - Q3

@Former user (Deleted)

What is the expected behaviour when a cardinality constraint in an Expression Template is not met?

Outstanding question - Q4

@Former user (Deleted)

Are there any other template requirements that we haven't yet considered for other use cases (e.g. for concept authoring)

Confirm next meeting date/time

@Former user (Deleted)

Next meeting to be held at 20:00 UTC on Wednesday 20th July