Stream: australia-child-health
Topic: Upload FHIR Document
Shovan Roy (May 26 2019 at 23:29):
Hi All,
I'm working on a requirement where the client system will be uploading FHIR document in a central FHIR repository.
Summary:
The client system will be uploading FHIR document (Bundle with Composition being the first resource). However the requirement is to include the details of the person who has provided the Consent that the document can be uploaded. As per project's policy/privacy rules, the details of the Consenter can not be included in the same Bundle (immutable FHIR document). I'm thinking of modelling this using a custom FHIR operation $upload added on Bundle. This will be a POST operation and the Parameters resource of $upload will be containing the the following list of IN Parameters:
1> payload- Bundle with all relevant resources, Composition being the first entry.
2> consenter - A Patient instance detailing the entity who has provided the consent during registration.
The outcome will be resulting an OperationOutcome detailing the informational/error/warning with more details.
Query:
Is this a good idea to solve this requirement using custom FHIR operation $upload? is there any alternative suggestion?
Looping in @Lloyd McKenzie, @Grahame Grieve , @Reuben Daniels , @Nichol Hill , @Brett Esler for comments/suggestion
Brett Esler (May 27 2019 at 04:01):
Just thinking aloud here - how about a transaction with a Bundle which includes two Bundle entries - one for the document submission and in the second bundle a Consent resource (referencing the submitted document) and any other resources needed (Patient etc.)
Shovan Roy (May 27 2019 at 04:08):
thanks @Brett Esler , thought of this option with providing the Patient as GET as the method. However was not sure if this can be called as transaction. The Patient ( who has pre-provided the Consent) is kind of a pre-condition for the document to persist but that Patient reference is not used anywhere in Bundle persistence. what do you think ?
Shovan Roy (May 27 2019 at 04:19):
I think we may use transaction here.. Let's discuss this in the CWG tomorrow? meanwhile let's see if there is any other suggestion from anyone else from the FHIR community.
Shovan Roy (May 28 2019 at 22:39):
We are going ahead with the transaction approach. We will only re-visit this option if we encounter any technical issue during implementation. thanks @Brett Esler and @Richard Townley-O'Neill for sharing suggestions.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
