Stream: implementers
Topic: extension patterns
Jay Lyle (Nov 07 2019 at 16:10):
We have two different classifications for drugs - a "national" and a "VA" classification.
We are considering two designs to support populating FHIR.
- Two extensions, one for each legacy property
- One extension, specified twice in profile with different terminology bindings
What are the pros and cons others have encountered between these patterns?
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 07 2019 at 16:20):
Why are you using extension at all? Why aren't they just additional codings?
Jay Lyle (Nov 12 2019 at 19:22):
OK, that makes sense. Thanks.
But there are other cases of the question: we have, e.g., classifications of med "type" (similar to doseForm, e.g., SYRINGE, ADMIXTURE, CHEMOTHERAPY, PIGGYBACK, TPN, UNIT DOSE, but on the order not the med) that share some values: the pending inpatient has 10 values; finished IV has a subset; a third case has a different subset. What design issues would help choose between more extensions or deferred bindings?
This, too, could use core properties: med.product.form, assuming we can instantiate another resource. I'll look for another example, because there are some where a pattern would help.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Nov 12 2019 at 21:28):
I have a concern about using a product code for a classification. That creates confusion. A product cannot be designated or identified by its classification(s).
Jose Costa Teixeira (Nov 12 2019 at 21:29):
Medication code is there to identify a product. A classification does not identify a product
Jay Lyle (Dec 09 2019 at 22:51):
Well, the product code will be there. The classifications will be additional, broader encodings, with different systems that should scope their use. Is there a problem with that?
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
