Stream: implementers
Topic: Observation Definition
Richard Bagley (Jan 11 2019 at 16:12):
We are using the nuget implementation of FHIR and there seems to be a difference in how the code field is described in the documentation. In the documentation is defined as a Codeable Concept and not as a Coding. Any ideas as to how we resolve this since we need to be able to have multiple codings?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 11 2019 at 20:36):
CodeableConcept includes 0..* Codings
Yassiel Oliva (Jan 11 2019 at 21:11):
the problem is related to the .net fhir client. we need to specify more than one coding as the documentation stands but the client only allows to specify a single Coding instead of a CodeableConcept:
pasted image
but in fhir client we have:
pasted image
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 11 2019 at 21:12):
@Ewout Kramer @Brian Postlethwaite ?
Brian Postlethwaite (Jan 11 2019 at 21:48):
Which branch of the source is that (or package version)
Brian Postlethwaite (Jan 12 2019 at 01:45):
I've double checked and the current develop-R4 branch has the CodeableConcept in the source.
Brian Postlethwaite (Jan 12 2019 at 01:45):
Yassiel Oliva (Jan 14 2019 at 14:40):
Which branch of the source is that (or package version)
we are using the latest version of the nuget v0.96.1
Brian Postlethwaite (Jan 15 2019 at 16:59):
That's an old branch of R4, the final version has not been released to NuGet yet that. The source is available in the branch I've mentioned above, and if you want to get the current version, it's available as an alpha in the MyGet package source.
Richard Bagley (Mar 27 2021 at 00:29):
Currently we are trying to implement Observation Definitions for results within our Laboratory System. As a part of our reporting we factor in the Average value of a particular observation by gender. What is the best place fore such a value in Observation Definition?
Lin Zhang (Mar 27 2021 at 03:33):
That would be an Observation for a population by gender.
Richard Bagley (Mar 27 2021 at 18:17):
How would that be referenced by the Observation Definition? We are basically saying that the average male has this value for the observation defined. We need it connected to the Observation Definition to be able to easily pass that value on when we generate the observation for the Diagnostic Report.
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 27 2021 at 18:37):
For a specific observation, you'd normally communicate the average with Observation.referenceRange. (If the type was 'average', you'd send low and high set to the same value or wouldn't specify a 'high' at all.) You don't generally send an ObservationDefinition (or even a link to it) with the Observation.
Richard Bagley (Mar 27 2021 at 18:54):
When I was saying the average value, it was the average for the population as a whole and not an average derived on that particular set of testing for a particular patient. Would that value also get stored via a range as you suggested?
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 27 2021 at 19:21):
Yes. normalRange is typically used to capture population-level expectations. It's pretty rare to have a normalRange that's specific to an individual (though it's possible).
Richard Bagley (Mar 29 2021 at 02:00):
In this case, it is just population wide. I think if we has some sort of average on the individual level we would just add additional observations. Like you said, it is just a normal Range so it will be easy. Thanks!
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
