FHIR Chat · Implantable vs. Medical vs. Non-medical Device

Stream: implementers

Topic: Implantable vs. Medical vs. Non-medical Device

Shamil Nizamov (May 04 2021 at 21:29):

Is there a way to define what kind of device a particular Device instance resource represent?
If not, will it be useful to have an element to define the device type, for example, for an inventory or similar machine-readable purpose.

Lloyd McKenzie (May 04 2021 at 21:30):

Device.type serves this purpose

Lloyd McKenzie (May 04 2021 at 21:30):

(Though UDI can as well, if available)

Shamil Nizamov (May 04 2021 at 21:34):

That was my initial thought. But, for example, US Core Device.type with the extensible binding says: "This value set has >1000 codes in it. ..."
That's too broad to be useful in a real case scenario. Some codes there like - 13905003 | Tennis ball - which is obviously not implantable or medical.

Elliot Silver (May 04 2021 at 21:50):

Some codes there like - 13905003 | Tennis ball - which is obviously not implantable or medical.

I suspect an ED physician may correct you there. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Shamil Nizamov (May 04 2021 at 21:52):

That's why I mentioned that I'm looking for a machine recognizable way, not a human.
So far there are only few categories that comes to my mind: implantable, medical, non-medical and tissue based.

Elliot Silver (May 04 2021 at 21:58):

Hmm, thinking about it, I can see someone using a tennis ball to work on hand strength of similar as part of physical therapy, so, it might actually be a medical device. But I do see your point.

Lloyd McKenzie (May 04 2021 at 22:03):

You're wanting a high-level categorization. I don't think that's a use-case that's come forward, but you could submit a change request to ask for that and explain your use-case.