Stream: implementers
Topic: fhir-taxonomy-code
Katerina Nikolova (Apr 06 2021 at 19:57):
Hello all, I am relatively new to FHIR. Currently we are converting certain source data to FHIR. On the source data we have taxonomy codes for organizations. In core and US core versions I didn't see any extensions available. Using the HAPI FHIR libraries I was able to add a custom extension. Screenshot-from-2021-04-05-162753.png. I did some research on the internet and was able to add the custom extension as seen in the screenshot. I apologize if this question has been asked before.
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 06 2021 at 22:24):
Why wouldn't you put this in Organization.type? You shouldn't need to use an extension at all...
Katerina Nikolova (Apr 07 2021 at 04:58):
Lloyd McKenzie said:
Why wouldn't you put this in
Organization.type? You shouldn't need to use an extension at all...
Thank you for your response. Based on the FHIR spec, I think Organization.type is more general. That's why I decided to add a custom extension
Daniel Venton (Apr 07 2021 at 12:48):
There is a PractitionerRole resource that is all about taxonomy codes and who provides at which organization.
Daniel Venton (Apr 07 2021 at 12:49):
The thing about extensions, is that unless you register the extension nobody will know what the extension means thus will ignore it (probably even if it is registered).
Katerina Nikolova (Apr 07 2021 at 13:48):
Daniel Venton said:
There is a PractitionerRole resource that is all about taxonomy codes and who provides at which organization.
The difference here is that we have different taxonomy codes for Practitioners and Organizations. Some of the organizations are not associated to any Practitioners. If you look a NPI registry the taxonomy code is available there. I am not sure whether organization.type is suitable
Daniel Venton (Apr 07 2021 at 17:39):
No organization provides treatment. An organization hires people that provide treatment. You might not know who the practitioner at the organization is, but there is still a practitioner. Having a Practitioner Role that lists all the various taxonomy codes associated with (the people that work at) an organization is probably still the right answer.
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 07 2021 at 20:43):
Organization.type can have a variety of levels of granularity. There's no "standard" terminology. It's fine to have both more specific and more generic codes.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
