Peter G. Williams

Rob Hausam

Recording + Notes.

Peter G. Williams

Rob Hausam

Summary of previous week:

• 2018-04-17 - SNOMED on FHIR Meeting (TS)

Specimen binding

Suggestion from Jim Case that the type attribute would be better bound to (< Substance plus < Morphologic Abnormality plus < 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 (Linda Bird), the method attribute is currently a selection of SNOMED CT concepts plus a V2 valueset.

Two main options:

1. Use Specimen hierarchy for "type" and then constrain what can appear in the other fields (and how we deal with conflict!)
2. Put all information into 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).

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.

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?