Stream: Orders and Observation WG
Topic: Include more codes to Identifier-type
Mullai Murugan (Sep 12 2019 at 22:47):
Hello - we include the type attribute for the identifier element (see example) to indicate the type of identifier. However, we are limited by the options available for identifier-type at https://hl7.org/fhir/R4/valueset-identifier-type.html. For example, we need to use PI (Patient internal identifier) instead of MRN for Patient Identifier. Can the identifier-type be expanded to include the full list at http://hl7.org/fhir/v2/0203/? Thanks!
Apologies if I posted this to wrong stream -
Example:
"identifier": [
{
"type": {
"coding": [
{
"system": "http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v2-0203",
"code": "FILL"
}
]
}
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 12 2019 at 23:31):
You're free to use that too (though I'm curious where the 'need to' comes from). The expectation with 'extensible' is that if one of those codes applies, you must send it. However, you're free to send additional more fine-grained codes.
Eric Haas (Sep 12 2019 at 23:45):
I am unclear how these two concept are different myself. It seems PI is a superset of MR and we should have that in the fhir valueset instead or a heirarchy. (BTW this is a Vocab issue not OO)
Mullai Murugan (Sep 13 2019 at 16:01):
@Lloyd McKenzie @Eric Haas "need to" might be a little too strong; here is our scenario for the eMERGE project - we don't get the MRN as the patient identifier in the genetic test requisition, instead we get an internal eMERGE identifier for each patient and we wanted to be able to call that out specifically in the identifier element. But using code PI in patient resulted in a warning during validation, see below. Any codes in fhir/v2/0203 other than the ones specifically called out in https://hl7.org/fhir/R4/valueset-identifier-type.html result in warnings during validation leading me to think that only the fhir/v2/0203 codes specifically called out for identifier-type (which seemed be a subset) can be used. Should we just ignore the validation warnings?
@Eric Haas will add similar questions to Vocab going forward.
patient:
"issue": [
{
"severity": "warning",
"code": "processing",
"diagnostics": "None of the codes provided are in the value set http://hl7.org/fhir/ValueSet/identifier-type (http://hl7.org/fhir/ValueSet/identifier-type, and a code should come from this value set unless it has no suitable code) (codes = http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v2-0203#PI)",
"location": [
"Parameters.parameter[0].resource.identifier[0].type"
]
}
]
specimen:
"issue": [
{
"severity": "warning",
"code": "processing",
"diagnostics": "None of the codes provided are in the value set http://hl7.org/fhir/ValueSet/identifier-type (http://hl7.org/fhir/ValueSet/identifier-type, and a code should come from this value set unless it has no suitable code) (codes = http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v2-0203#SID)",
"location": [
"Parameters.parameter[0].resource.identifier[0].type"
]
}
]
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 13 2019 at 16:12):
The base problem here is that the v2 code system we're drawing from is a mess. It doesn't provide definitions and doesn't define hierarchy - that makes it very difficult to understand what's allowed and what's not.
Mullai Murugan (Sep 13 2019 at 16:33):
@Lloyd McKenzie we can ignore the warnings and go forward with eMERGE. But in the long run, where does this leave us? Should we submit a gForge item for Vocab?
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 13 2019 at 17:19):
I'd recommend submitting a gForge item to the attention of MnM so they can provide guidance on dealing with this (and similar issues)
Mullai Murugan (Sep 13 2019 at 18:23):
Thanks @Lloyd McKenzie , will do so
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
