FHIR Chat · Do standard FHIR Operations need to be included in IG · implementers

Stream: implementers

Topic: Do standard FHIR Operations need to be included in IG

Richard Braman (Jul 27 2020 at 13:51):

Hi, we have almost wrapped up adding /Patient/$everything to our API. My question is Should we add Patient/$everything to our DPC IG, given that Patient/$everything is a standard FHIR operation?

Michele Mottini (Jul 27 2020 at 13:54):

Yes, if you want to make it required

Richard Braman (Jul 27 2020 at 13:55):

@Michele Mottini what do you mean by required?

Michele Mottini (Jul 27 2020 at 14:00):

If you want to say 'to comply with the DPC IG server SHALL implement $everything' you have to put $everything in the IG

Richard Braman (Jul 27 2020 at 14:12):

Well , our server is the only server complying with the DPC IG for now. Does the compliance requirement extend to clients?

Richard Braman (Jul 27 2020 at 14:15):

also, in our capabilities stmt, do we define the /Patient/$everything operation with the FHIR URL or our IG URL?

"operation": [
  {
    "name": "patient-everything",
    "definition": {
      "reference": "http://hl7.org/fhir/OperationDefinition/Patient-everything"
    }
  }

or

"reference": https://dpc.cms.gov/api/v1/OperationDefinition/dpc-operation-patient-everything

Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 27 2020 at 14:25):

The OperationDefinition doesn't need to appear in your IG if you're not constraining it. However, it should be referenced in the CapabilityStatement(s) of the systems that need to support it.

Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 27 2020 at 14:27):

All IGs have access to all resources, value sets, operations, etc. in the core spec, so they don't need to (and shouldn't) duplicate their definitions within their own IG. (In fact, they can't because if you include a core artifact in your IG, you end up having to change the canonical URLs.)

Richard Braman (Jul 27 2020 at 16:13):

That was my thought @Lloyd McKenzie . Why would you duplicate a core operation in an IG, unless you were further constraining the core standard? So we won't include it in the IG, but yes, it will be in the Capabilities stmt, with the url pointing back to the HL7 operation definition reference uri.

Emily Hart (Aug 13 2020 at 19:11):

In the case of DPC, Patient/$everything requests must include a Provenance resource in an X-Provenance header for attestation. Would that be considered constraining the operation, as mentioned in @Lloyd McKenzie 's message, requiring DPC to have its own operation definition?

Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 23 2020 at 23:26):

You have the ability to use CapabilityStatement.rest.operation.documentation to provide some general expectations. Given that your requirement isn't computably expressible in OperationDefinition, there isn't really a benefit to creating a 'derived' OperationDefinition just to include that bit of information @Emily Hart

Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC