FHIR Chat · No Observation.valueAttachment? · implementers

Stream: implementers

Topic: No Observation.valueAttachment?


view this post on Zulip John Silva (Jul 25 2019 at 16:56):

We were using Observation.valueAttachment in STU3 and I just noticed that Attachment type was removed. What or how should we represent a document attachment (PDF via a URL and content type, etc.)

view this post on Zulip Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 25 2019 at 17:33):

Media

view this post on Zulip John Silva (Jul 25 2019 at 17:39):

Media over DocumentReference? I took a quick look at both; what goes into the decision making process to use one over the other? (and there's a 'big warning' about Media being 'trial use' --- do we get ourselves into trouble by using this immature resource?)

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Jul 25 2019 at 17:47):

For R5 we are getting rid of Media and merging it into DocRef and I am pushing for a valueAttachment extension for those cases where the value is actually an attachment and not a result derived from the attachment. so use either a DofRef or a valueAttachment extension.

view this post on Zulip John Silva (Jul 25 2019 at 18:15):

@Eric Haas -- I guess a valueAttachment extension would be the easiest for us since we already have mappers and code that expects it. I guess you also gave us a very good reason to stay away from the Media resource; we'd only be 'shooting ourselves in the foot' if we spent the effort to migrate to it only to find out a year (or so) later that it's been 'deprecated'. This is the kind of info that somehow needs to be communicated better; if I didn't ask a question here I would have went on my way choosing Media only to be frustrated that it was removed a year later. (not all implementers have the time to watch and read through these message threads to get this 'inside information')

view this post on Zulip Kathy Pickering (Sep 10 2019 at 19:37):

Is there a specific valueAttachment extension you recommend?

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Sep 10 2019 at 21:24):

None in currenct spec. @Andrew Torres do you have an extension SD you can share? I will be proposing we add valueAttachment back to Observation 1st - if unsuccessful then proposal to create one for R5 ( mea culpa for ever voting to remove it in the first place :-( )

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Sep 10 2019 at 21:28):

To Bolster my case at the HL7 Working Group Meeting where these discussion are made I'd like a straw poll:

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Sep 10 2019 at 21:28):

/poll Add valueAttachment back into Observation for R5?

Yes
No
No - create a standard valueAttachment extension for R5
...

view this post on Zulip Jenni Syed (Sep 10 2019 at 21:35):

My opinion has nothing to do with Media and Doc Ref relationships

view this post on Zulip Jenni Syed (Sep 10 2019 at 21:35):

But we also didn't want to see attachment go away

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Sep 10 2019 at 21:35):

that would be a yes

view this post on Zulip Jenni Syed (Sep 10 2019 at 21:36):

Well, I don't care about the "Now that the Media..." :)

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Sep 10 2019 at 21:36):

I'm trying to edit the question

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Sep 10 2019 at 21:37):

oddly won't go away

view this post on Zulip Michele Mottini (Sep 10 2019 at 21:37):

I'd go for the extension - so that we can use it also in R4

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Sep 10 2019 at 21:39):

or both ? what if we backport the R4 extension and the R5 element?

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Sep 10 2019 at 21:39):

I don't know how that would be committed to spec though

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Sep 10 2019 at 21:52):

pre WGM valueAttachement Poll: see above

view this post on Zulip Jenni Syed (Sep 10 2019 at 21:54):

There are a few observation extension (or generic extensions) in R4 that allow Attachments

view this post on Zulip Jenni Syed (Sep 10 2019 at 21:56):

EG: http://hl7.org/fhir/r4/extension-workflow-supportinginfo.html (ew, contained)

view this post on Zulip Jenni Syed (Sep 10 2019 at 21:57):

http://hl7.org/fhir/r4/extension-workflow-relatedartifact.html (don't think this quite fits either)

view this post on Zulip Jenni Syed (Sep 10 2019 at 21:57):

Just want to make sure we're officially voting against those :)

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Sep 10 2019 at 22:06):

this is about the attachment being the *actual result value *of the observation. not from which the value was derived ( in which case .derivedFrom would used and would reference DocReference. Those extensions you mention represent other information to help with the interpretation or to contextualize the observation.

an example would be a jpg of a gel for electrophoresis. I am not sure how useful that would clinically be but that is an example.

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Sep 10 2019 at 22:10):

another user brought up a use case where an irregular series of measurements was documented in a csv file and that is the result value.
a picture of my cats ugly absess is another.


Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC