Stream: Orders and Observation WG
Topic: Observation Duration
Grahame Grieve (Mar 01 2018 at 03:49):
So say I'm capturing an observation for Occupational exposure factors, and there's a "duration of exposure'... doesn't this belong in Observation.effective[x]? I could put in effectiveTiming.repeat.duration... but wouldn't it be best to just have Observation.effectiveDuration?
Eric Haas (Mar 01 2018 at 04:01):
that is why we added Timing. Why is that not suitable?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 01 2018 at 04:02):
it doesn't repeat. it's just a statement that the exposure this document describes happened over a given duration
Eric Haas (Mar 01 2018 at 04:04):
not a discrete period? but just some arbitrary length of time? I still think using a swiss army knife like timing element works for this too.
Eric Haas (Mar 01 2018 at 04:05):
depends how common is for needing a dicrete duration element
Grahame Grieve (Mar 01 2018 at 05:34):
I feel as though duration of exposure will be common for exposure data. It's not a discrete period... I guess I just add repeat.count = 1.... just kind of tricky to render this how a person thinks it would render ... precisely because Timing is such a many faceted swiss army knife
Eric Haas (Mar 01 2018 at 15:57):
what is "exposure data" and do you want it in now? (last chance)
Eric Haas (Mar 01 2018 at 17:34):
Grahame Grieve (Mar 01 2018 at 21:02):
don't know whether I want to push for it now. I feel as though it should be added as an option for effective[x] but it needs much more review and consultation. It's wrong to just knee-jerk it in
Eric Haas (Mar 03 2018 at 01:19):
Will Discuss GF#15681 add choice of duration to Observation.effective[x] on OO on FHIR call.
assuming "exposure data"? mean stuff like 2nd hand smoke? :
Is duration useful without a time reference?… e..g 30 days vs 30 days starting on 1/1/2018 the later needs Timing.
Grahame Grieve (Mar 03 2018 at 10:33):
I think it's less useful without a time reference, but that's not the same as not useful
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC