Stream: implementers
Topic: Immunization protocol
David Hay (Oct 24 2017 at 17:06):
@Bryn Rhodes Just to check that the way to express a paedictric immunization protocol (ie the pre-defined set of immunizations that a child should receive) is a combination of planDefinition and activityDefinition. As opposed to the plan for a specific child, which would be expressed as an ImmunizationRecommendation
Bryn Rhodes (Oct 24 2017 at 17:18):
That's correct for the definition aspect, PlanDefinition and ActivityDefinition. For the plan for a specific child, yes, ImmunizationRecommendation, though that corresponds to both levels, where what we typically do is use a RequestGroup for the plan level and specific request resources for the item level.
David Hay (Oct 24 2017 at 17:19):
btw - assuming that this is correct, then adding 'age' as an option to ActivityDefinition.timing[] might be a good idea..
David Hay (Oct 24 2017 at 17:20):
and maybe Immunization as an option for ActivityDefinition.product ?
David Hay (Oct 24 2017 at 17:21):
I don't suppose you have an example of this?
Bryn Rhodes (Oct 24 2017 at 17:22):
Was just about to ask you the same question :)
David Hay (Oct 24 2017 at 17:22):
I'll give it a try!
Bryn Rhodes (Oct 24 2017 at 17:24):
As far as using Immunization for the definition, I don't think that would work, immunization is an event-level resource so it has a bunch of constraints related to tracking who/what/when the immunization actually happened.
Bryn Rhodes (Oct 24 2017 at 17:24):
I like the idea of timingAge for ActivityDefinition though, I can see that in a lot of use cases. Tracker?
David Hay (Oct 24 2017 at 17:25):
will do... (and I'll need that for my example :) )
David Hay (Oct 24 2017 at 17:29):
David Hay (Oct 24 2017 at 17:34):
and got it wrt immunization. productCodeableConcept indicating the specific vaccine is the way to go...
Evelyn Dröge (Apr 24 2018 at 14:44):
Hi @Bryn Rhodes , @David Hay
This topic is a few months old but I came across it today and find the discussion interesting and relevant. I hope it is okay to re-open it.
As far as I can see it, the age in an ActivityDefinition could also have been modeled via ActivityDefinition.useContext.
ValueSet: https://www.hl7.org/fhir/valueset-usage-context-type.html (code age)
Here is an example: http://hl7.org/fhir/activitydefinition-example.json.html
Is this a valid option for STU3 implementations? And which would be the preferred way in R4 - timingAge or useContext?
Bryn Rhodes (Apr 25 2018 at 15:57):
@Evelyn Dröge, it's true that useContext can provide an indication of age, but I think that's different than what we're proposing the timingAge would be used for. For one, being able to specify an Age-based timing would have uses everywhere Timing is used. And more importantly, the useContext is intended to be used to specify an appropriate Age range for potential usage of the ActivityDefinition, where the timing element in the ActivityDefinition itself is used to specify the template value when generating the actual activity resource for a specific subject. For example, the useContext might specify "This ActivityDefinition is appropriate for ages 50-54", but the timingAge would specify the value for the timingAge element of generated Activity, usually as an expression.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
