Stream: implementers
Topic: slicing codeableConcept.coding - meaning and consequences
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 02 2017 at 10:10):
Hi. if we have two codes in codeableConcept.coding, are those codes allowed to have different meaning or granularity?
e.g. can you a physican prescribe "nimesulide 100 mg" and we put both codes
"INN.XXX (nimesulide)" and
"BRAND.YYY (ACME Nisulid 100 mg box of 20)"?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 02 2017 at 10:14):
The definition talks about "Allows for translations and alternate encodings within a code system." It is not clear to me whether this supports translating with the same meaning, or with slightly different meanings
Stefan Lang (Aug 02 2017 at 14:53):
They should represent the same concept, as far as that is possible across different code systems:
"Each coding is a representation of the concept as described above. The concept may be coded multiple times in different code systems (or even multiple times in the same code systems, where multiple forms are possible, such as with SNOMED CT). The different codings may have slightly different granularity due to the differences in the definitions of the underlying codes. "
https://www.hl7.org/fhir/datatypes.html#codeableconcept
Stefan Lang (Aug 02 2017 at 14:58):
In your example, I doubt that a substance and a product represent the same concept - a product contains the substance.
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 02 2017 at 19:38):
It's perfectly legitimate to have different granularity - but they shouldn't be describing different properties. So having two codings one saying "Deep navy blue" and one saying "blue" is fine. Having one saying "blue" and one saying "silk" would be inappropriate. (Note that it's possible to have multiple codings all drawn from the same code system with different granularities or expression mechanisms (e.g. both the post-coordinated and pre-coordinated SNOMED codes.)
Rob Hausam (Aug 02 2017 at 20:14):
I would essentially agree with Stefan. The two codes in your example aren't really just at different granularities, they're about the substance and the packaged product containing the substance. What's the particular use case that you have in mind for wanting to convey them within the same CodeableConcept?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 02 2017 at 20:31):
Actually I agree with Stefan too. Just wanted to see if this is clear in the standard or open for interpretation
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 02 2017 at 20:32):
And yes, sometimes i observe that it is a temptation to consider the example substance/product a matter of granularity, but it really isn't.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 02 2017 at 20:35):
allow me to consider these replies as sufficient consensus on this :)
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 02 2017 at 20:35):
thanks
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
