Stream: IG creation
Topic: Category codes
David deRoode (Apr 12 2021 at 21:29):
Dental IG defines a US-Core-based Dental Condition profile and a Dental Observation profile and received ballot comments suggesting that both have the concept of 'dental' be found on .category. Given that US Core Condition.category is extensibly bound to HL7 CodeSystems, is it preferable to define a CodeSystem containing a single concept 'dental' vs. binding .category to an umbrella standard concept (ie 116337000 Oral cavity finding (finding) or 118938008 “Disease of mouth” (disorder))? @Rick Geimer @Lloyd McKenzie
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 14 2021 at 04:00):
US-Core should not have bound all repetitions to a single code system - they should have broken out only one slice and bound only that. However, so long as your codes are completely orthogonal to the bound set, you're free to define a slice that binds to something completely different. Personally, I think "dental" is better than "disease of the mouth" because there are mouth things that aren't considered dental (and possibly some dental things that aren't strictly 'mouth' things, though that I'm less certain about.
Eric Haas (Apr 14 2021 at 05:13):
us core binds to an extensible value set not code system ..... big difference.
Rob Hausam (Apr 14 2021 at 05:23):
Neither value sets or code systems are extensible - what we do have is an extensible binding to a value set, which allows a concept that is not included in the value set to be sent if the meaning is not represented (at any level of granularity) by any of the concepts in the value set. It's good to remind ourselves of that (even for vocabulary folks).
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 16 2021 at 14:36):
My point is that US Core binds all repetitions to a single value set. It should only bind one repetition to that value set.
Rob Hausam (Apr 16 2021 at 15:23):
Agree.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
