Stream: implementers
Topic: Profile search parameters
Peter Bernhardt (Sep 13 2016 at 22:55):
Very basic question about profiling, I think. How can you specify search capabilities for a profile? Or is the conformance statement the only place this happens?
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 14 2016 at 00:58):
You define search parameters for a resource. If the search parameter is dependent on certain elements, then it'll only work if those elements are present. However, it should work for any instance where those elements are present, regardless of profile - so I'm not clear on the need to tie profile and search parameter together.
Peter Bernhardt (Sep 14 2016 at 13:56):
Take the DAF Patient profile. This includes, among other things, race and ethnicity, both of which must be searchable. There is no way to express this in the StructureDefinition. BTW, I don't see this profile in Sep2016 version of STU3, but I do find Search extensions (see http://hl7.org/fhir/2016Sep/patient-profiles.html#search). How were those defined? There is no link to an actual structure definition. And if they are just missing due to a build issue, I would expect those extensions to be in the DAF Patient profile. But they aren’t in the DAF Patient profile available in May2016 version of STU3.
Günter Zöchbauer (Sep 14 2016 at 16:07):
Hi everyone! This is my first post here.
In practitioner-example-f001-edvb.json there is
"practitionerRole": [
{
"managingOrganization": {
"reference": "Organization/f001",
"display": "BMC"
},
"role": {
"coding": [
{
"system": "urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.15.111",
"code": "01.000",
"_code": {
"fhir_comments": [
" \"AssignedRoleType\" coding system "
]
},
"display": "Arts"
}
],
"text": "Care role"
},
"specialty": [
{
"coding": [
{
"system": "urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.15.111",
"code": "01.018",
"_code": {
"fhir_comments": [
" \"AssignedRoleType\" coding system "
]
},
"display": "Ear-, Nose and Throat"
}
],
"text": "specialization"
}
]
}
]
Is there a way to figure out what values urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.15.111 contains?
https://www.hl7.org/fhir/terminologies-systems.html
Shows 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.1.251 (http://hl7.org/fhir/practitioner-role) and 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.1.252` (http://hl7.org/fhir/practitioner-specialty)
Does this mean for the example there need to be an extension somewhere that defines a different system?
I want to build a user interface and display valid values in a dropdown. How would I approach that?
Aleksandra Pavlyshina (Sep 14 2016 at 16:32):
Hope that helps:
2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.15.111 HL7-NL Role Code Zorgverlener rol typen: Identificeert de diverse rollen die een zorgverlener binnen een organisatie vervult
http://decor.nictiz.nl/eoverdracht/e-overdracht-html-20120928T120000/vs-2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.15.111.html
http://art-decor.org/decor/services/RetrieveValueSet?prefix=ihexds-&id=2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.11.60.1.11.2&effectiveDate=2016-04-01T00:00:00&version=&format=html&language=en-US
Also, the Argonaut Practitioner IG uses NUCC:
Practitioner.role.code (NUCC - Classification)
Practitioner.role.speciality (NUCC - Specialization)
Günter Zöchbauer (Sep 14 2016 at 16:44):
@Aleksandra Pavlyshina yes, that's helpful :-)
I'm still unsure how this would work in an GUI. How would the app know what values from which ValueSet it should provide in the dropdown list.
For above codes I assume the Practitioner profile would need to have an extension defined that points to these value sets.
Is that right?
Peter Bernhardt (Sep 14 2016 at 18:55):
Looks like this thread got a bit diverted. Back to my question: how is it possible to express in a profile what the expectations are for query? As a concrete example, how did the DAF Patient profile define that a server SHALL support query for patient based on race and ethnicity?
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 14 2016 at 19:31):
Conformance - that's what lets you define what a system must be capable of
Peter Bernhardt (Sep 14 2016 at 19:33):
A profile on Conformance, then? That is, as part of an IG, you could include a profile for the Conformance statement that requires certain search capabilities be included.
Chris Grenz (Sep 14 2016 at 19:35):
I think create a conformance instance with what you need and then use http://hl7-fhir.github.io/conformance-operations.html#implements to test.
Peter Bernhardt (Sep 14 2016 at 20:13):
I undertsand the instance would express your query requirements. But an implementation guide wouldn't have an instance, but rather a structure definition that describes the constrains on a conformant instance.
Peter Bernhardt (Sep 14 2016 at 20:13):
Whether it's a patient or an observation or a conformance resource instance.
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 14 2016 at 21:26):
@Peter Bernhardt An implementation guide would definitely have an instance. Conformance can be used to document what a specific system can do, but it can also be used to document what a system should do.
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 14 2016 at 21:27):
As an example, see this Conformance instance in the SDC implementation guide: http://hl7.org/FHIR/us/sdc/2016Sep/conformance-sdc-form-manager.html
Eric Haas (Sep 14 2016 at 22:22):
For DAF STU2 we have a confomance profile defined here. I think that we need to add the SHOULDs in there as well and that not supported by the Conformance resource
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 14 2016 at 23:23):
The should/shall/may stuff is a standard extension. It's actually a bit cleaner as an extension because it can show up a whole bunch of places.
Peter Bernhardt (Sep 15 2016 at 01:18):
@Eric Haas thanks
Günter Zöchbauer (Sep 15 2016 at 09:42):
Sorry for hijacking this thread with my question yesterday. I wasn't aware of streams.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 15 2016 at 09:42):
@Günter Zöchbauer - I think that example has the wrong system. can you create a gForge task to get us to fix it please
Günter Zöchbauer (Sep 15 2016 at 10:02):
@Grahame Grieve Sorry, I can't login. I didn't get the activation confirmation mail after I registered.
When I request to get the confirmation mail sent again, it tells me that the user is already active. If I try to login it tells me that the username or password is invalid.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 15 2016 at 10:21):
hmmm. @Lloyd McKenzie can you help?
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 15 2016 at 13:49):
@Günter Zöchbauer, confirmation emails are only sent after a human has looked at your request - it can take several hours, sometimes even a day before this happens. In any event, I've approved you, so check again for a confirmation email.
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 15 2016 at 13:50):
@Josh Mandel, suggestion to pass on to the Zulip folks: In the type-ahead for referencing "@" names, it would be nice if it ignored accents when looking for matches :)
Günter Zöchbauer (Sep 15 2016 at 13:53):
@Lloyd McKenzie Didn't expect that. Especially the message that the account is already active was confusing.
Thanks for having a look and approving!
Günter Zöchbauer (Sep 15 2016 at 14:13):
@Grahame Grieve done http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=10762&start=0
Sandeep Giri (May 23 2017 at 19:32):
I understand that Profile or StructuredDefinition is meant to define the constraints of your FHIR server. IOW, you restrict requirements, not expand them. So, if I want to support additional search parameters than what is defined in a standard FHIR resource definition, is that possible? I mean, technically, I'd be expanding the scope of the resource, but this seems pretty legit use case where the default search parameters defined in a FHIR resource are not adequate for my use cases. Thoughts?
Lloyd McKenzie (May 23 2017 at 19:48):
The CapabilityStatement resource defines what capabilities a system must have. When used in implementation guides, it sets minimums, not maximums. So it's perfectly fine to define additional search parameters your system supports.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
