Stream: australia
Topic: AU base terminology binding
Brett Esler (Sep 15 2018 at 05:56):
Here is one to think about - after our Argonaut Australia discussion of terminology binding and some desire to bind some elements at Preferred level - was considering the current state of AU Base bindings - we have a all slices bound at the Required level which prevents a derived profile selecting that slice at binding at Preferred level correct? Seems to me we would need to bind valuesets as Preferred in AU base and leave it up to the downstream IG to raise to Required as appropriate.... can anyone see problems with this?
Brian Postlethwaite (Sep 15 2018 at 10:21):
A place where I would expect required binding would be is on something like the IHI status extensions.
Brian Postlethwaite (Sep 15 2018 at 10:22):
And the indigenous status.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 15 2018 at 23:06):
yes there's some terminologies we should make requried
Grahame Grieve (Sep 15 2018 at 23:06):
btw, we should define a URL for ICPC2+
Brett Esler (Sep 16 2018 at 12:11):
So earlier version of ICPC are
http://hl7.org/fhir/sid/icpc-1
http://hl7.org/fhir/sid/icpc-1-nl
http://hl7.org/fhir/sid/icpc-2
Maybe for ICPC2+ http://hl7.org.au/fhir/sid/icpc-2plus ?
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Sep 17 2018 at 03:40):
I think that where we make the binding strength 'required' in AU base profiles, there needs to be an explanation for the binding strength in ElementDefinition.required.
Michael Lawley (Sep 19 2018 at 05:01):
Where is icpc2+ required?
Grahame Grieve (Sep 19 2018 at 07:03):
Icpc2+ is Not required anywhere except in the sense that people use it, and have asked for terminology support for it
Brett Esler (Sep 19 2018 at 07:06):
~20% GP system market; most of indigenous/rural remote; majority of specialist market
Brett Esler (Sep 19 2018 at 07:06):
in use right now..
Grahame Grieve (Sep 19 2018 at 07:07):
I’m ok with what your proposed.. can you add it to base?
Brett Esler (Sep 19 2018 at 07:10):
will start with explicit ValueSet including all of http://hl7.org.au/fhir/sid/icpc-2plus
Brett Esler (Sep 19 2018 at 07:18):
back to the binding strength question - on further discussion I think we can maintain Required strength on all of the CodeableConcept.coding slices - since these are on the sliced coding element rather than on the CodeableConcept element itself downstream IGs can pick up the coding element still as optional then decide to make mandatory 1.. or mustSupport as desired; invariants could warn or error on preferred use if desired
Brett Esler (Sep 19 2018 at 07:22):
Preferred binding makes sense if binding is on the CodeableConcept - slicing on coding 0..1 or 0..* gives us ability to choose multiple relevant ValueSet bindings; make any of them mandatory; and use invariants to warn against non preferred terminology use
Brett Esler (Sep 20 2018 at 00:44):
ok @Grahame Grieve ICPC2+ is up http://build.fhir.org/ig/hl7au/au-fhir-base/ValueSet-icpc2plus.html
Jim Steel (Sep 20 2018 at 05:49):
I assume we don't have a complete CodeSystem for that?
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Sep 20 2018 at 05:56):
Does that fit nicely with icpc2+ having national versions?
Grahame Grieve (Sep 21 2018 at 03:56):
I have a complete code system for ICPC-2+ but I don't think I can distribute it in public
Grahame Grieve (Sep 21 2018 at 03:56):
but there's this:
Grahame Grieve (Sep 21 2018 at 03:57):
Jim Steel (Sep 21 2018 at 07:03):
Oh, its available as a Claml file? If that's the case, I'm all set for making it into a CodeSystem
Grahame Grieve (Sep 21 2018 at 07:04):
I believe that worked for both ICPC2+ as well as ICPC2. Though I've mostly used it with ICPC2 lately
Jim Steel (Sep 21 2018 at 07:05):
Yeah, I've converted ICPC2 before, and other Claml things (ICD, READ, opcs)
Brett Esler (Sep 21 2018 at 23:09):
think ICPC2+ is licensed for use...
Brett Esler (Sep 21 2018 at 23:09):
per site
Michael Lawley (Oct 27 2018 at 03:24):
@Richard Townley-O'Neill as I understand it, ICPC2 is an international thing, but ICPC2+ is an AU-specific extension managed by the NCCH. Are there other national versions of ICPC2+?
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Oct 29 2018 at 04:34):
@Michael Lawley I have no idea whether there are other versions of ICPC2+.
Michael Lawley (Oct 29 2018 at 05:56):
ah, I was trying to understand your question:
Does that fit nicely with icpc2+ having national versions?
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
