Stream: conformance
Topic: tx.fhir.org atc CS outdated?
Patrick Werner (May 17 2020 at 16:41):
When validating L01XE14 against tx.fhir.org (via the java validator)this error is shown:
Terminology server: Check for supported code systems for http://www.whocc.no/atc
error: The code "L01XE14" is not valid in the system http://www.whocc.no/atc; The code provided (http://www.whocc.no/atc#L01XE14) is not valid in the value set All codes known to the system for "http://www.whocc.no/atc#L01XE14"````
Does the ATC CS need an update?
Grahame Grieve (May 17 2020 at 18:53):
@Rob Hausam
Rob Hausam (May 17 2020 at 19:17):
@Patrick Werner There are two issues here. The first is that tx.fhir.org currently is supporting only a "by request" subset of the ATC codes, because we don't have ready access to a full ATC distribution (we essentially have to get the codes one by one from the WHO ATC browser). The 'L01XE14' code hasn't previously been requested and so is not currently in the package containing the codes that will be supported. I can add it, along with any other codes that you may want to request to be supported, and that will take care of the first issue (for now, until we find a way to get a complete distribution). The second issue, though, is that the latest package updates that have already been made aren't yet showing up on the tx.fhir.org server. I've been discussing that with @Grahame Grieve and hopefully we'll have that solved soon.
Patrick Werner (May 18 2020 at 07:16):
Thanks @Rob Hausam
For a chilean project, some years ago, we just bought ATC Excel Sheets from the WHO, would this help?
Grahame Grieve (May 18 2020 at 08:32):
if it's not illegal for you to give them to us, very much so
Rob Hausam (May 18 2020 at 13:07):
Yes, agree with @Grahame Grieve on that, @Patrick Werner. My biggest question/concern with that, of course, is once we have the full set of codes (if that is an option), what will we do for ongoing maintenance and updates? Having everything in an older version without access to the current source and future updates would actually make us less flexible in being able to respond to requests for new codes. If we are able to maintain multiple versions (which I suspect we can't do at the moment?), some with full content and others possibly partial, that might work - sort of - but overall it might also be too complicated and messy. It's definitely a dilemma.
Grahame Grieve (May 18 2020 at 18:55):
don't understand this - loading all the content of an older version as well as everything else we have will be better than not doing it?
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
