Stream: fhir/documents
Topic: FHIR Resources
Peter Bomberg (Jun 20 2018 at 12:39):
I am wondering how to get a listing of FHIR resources being developed that have not yet been published to the http://hl7.org/fhir/2018May/resourcelist.html list, are there others for topics such as Regulated Document, Regulated Section?
Grahame Grieve (Jun 20 2018 at 12:51):
the most up to date list is http://build.fhir.org/resourcelist.html
Grahame Grieve (Jun 20 2018 at 12:51):
or you might find something here:
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 20 2018 at 13:20):
I think Grahame had meant to point here: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Category:FHIR_Resource_Proposal
I'm not aware of any plans for "Regulated Document" or "Regulated Section" - what would those be?
Grahame Grieve (Jun 20 2018 at 13:21):
oh yes - got distrated
Peter Bomberg (Jun 20 2018 at 13:58):
I think Grahame had meant to point here: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Category:FHIR_Resource_Proposal
I'm not aware of any plans for "Regulated Document" or "Regulated Section" - what would those be?
The CDA section model lacks some aspects that are used in many of the HC (and I suspect other regulators) content management systems. As an example SPL defines effective dates so we either extend the document or create a resource that (ideally all) regulators use as the baseline resource for regulatory review and approval processes (in HC's case this would include the PM, CPID, NOC, ...), the same goes for document level metadata.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 20 2018 at 14:20):
That use-case wouldn't likely be handled by separate resources, but rather by using extensions within the existing Composition resource and/or resources referenced by Composition.section that actually convey the data of the FHIR document. You would create a profile for SPL or similar types of documents that sets the expectation for the inclusion of those extensions.
Peter Bomberg (Jun 20 2018 at 14:27):
That use-case wouldn't likely be handled by separate resources, but rather by using extensions within the existing Composition resource and/or resources referenced by Composition.section that actually convey the data of the FHIR document. You would create a profile for SPL or similar types of documents that sets the expectation for the inclusion of those extensions.
In principal I am in agreement, I think we should leave the door open and see how many changes/extensions FDA and HC + other regulators if we can get ICH to endorse this are requested before determining the implementation approach as both options have +/-, however I agree the extension model is viable
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 20 2018 at 14:40):
Allowing alternate resources as the "root" of a FHIR Document would be a fundamental shift that would require a very pressing use-case to justify. That's not to say it's out of the question, but do expect an uphill battle if you try to pursue that route.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
