Stream: argonaut
Topic: Encounter-Diagnosis
Dheeraj Kumar Pal (Jun 19 2020 at 21:27):
HI Brett and Eric Haas,
This is Dheeraj Pal (Sr. Technical Lead/Architect) from New York eHealth Collaborative, We are working on public health use case for NY DOH to pull the COVID specific data and need to have Conditions as part of encounter. It seems US-core Encounter profile does not have the diagnosis.condition included. Any specific reason for the not to include condition ? is there a plan to include it ? can we go ahead and create extension on it for our use case or is there a way to include conditions with respect to Encounter?
Any help and guidance is much appreciated !!
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 19 2020 at 22:12):
@Brett Marquard @Eric Haas
Eric Haas (Jun 19 2020 at 22:32):
vendors we worked with don't typically capture it that way.... see the implementer note here: https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/US-Core-R4/StructureDefinition-us-core-encounter.html#mandatory-and-must-support-data-elements
Eric Haas (Jun 19 2020 at 22:32):
and re...
is there a plan to include it ?
Unless the vendors start doing it this way ... no
Eric Haas (Jun 19 2020 at 22:35):
is there a way to include conditions with respect to Encounter?
it is already in the base spec and US Core does not preclude it so your instances can contain the element:
Encounter.diagnosis
but whether you can convince systems to support is the real question
Dheeraj Kumar Pal (Jun 20 2020 at 09:39):
@Eric Haas @Brett Marquard
Thank you so much for quick response !! We are using US-Core profile almost for all other resources. Is it Ok to use base spec for Encounter or we should create extension on US-Core Encounter to include diagnosis.condition.
Is there a process to communicate this vendor and understand if this is something to be considered? It's too big ask?
Michele Mottini (Jun 20 2020 at 14:25):
No need for an extension: you can use Encounter.diagnosis, it is part of the base specs and having more elements does not break the US Core profile rules
Michele Mottini (Jun 20 2020 at 14:26):
BUT FHIR clients written for US Core would not expect any data there, and will probably ignore it, and data generated by US Core compliant server would not populate it
Michele Mottini (Jun 20 2020 at 14:27):
better probably to use a separate Condition resource
Dheeraj Kumar Pal (Jun 20 2020 at 15:18):
Thank you s much for clarifying !!
Eric Haas (Jun 22 2020 at 17:14):
It seems like a bigger problem that you are not already communicating with them if you expect them to use your work products.
Eric Haas (Jun 22 2020 at 17:15):
I would recommend profile from US Core instead of base
Dheeraj Kumar Pal (Jun 22 2020 at 21:17):
Eric Haas said:
I would recommend profile from US Core instead of base
So, How should we proceed with US -core if the element is not part of profile ? should we go for extension or talking to vendor who does US-Core implementation is the way to go ? Please advise
Eric Haas (Jun 22 2020 at 21:22):
US Core does not exclude the element, base your profile on US Core and add the element. See http://hl7.org/fhir/profiling.html
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
