Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-37739

Clarify the use of Identifier.type

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Icon: Change Request Change Request
    • Resolution: Not Persuasive
    • Icon: Medium Medium
    • FHIR Core (FHIR)
    • R4B
    • Modeling & Methodology
    • Datatypes
    • 2.24.0.13 Identifier
    • Hide

      We believe that the "flatness" of the v2-0203 code system is not relevant to the use of Identifier.type.  What is relevant is whether one of the given codes in the current value set applies to the concept being communicated.  That is true of all extensible bindings in the specification.  In the example given, LACSN is a type of ACSN so ACSN would be the appropriate code to send and LACSN could also be sent if desired.

      Code systems that have a hierarchy and rules that enforce that sibling codes are non-overlapping support automated determination of whether of a code is an appropriate extension or not.  Most code systems do not demonstrate these behaviours and determination of whether a code is a valid extension will typically need to be made by a human terminologist.

      We don't see a need to add any specific clarification here.

      Show
      We believe that the "flatness" of the v2-0203 code system is not relevant to the use of Identifier.type.  What is relevant is whether one of the given codes in the current value set applies to the concept being communicated.  That is true of all extensible bindings in the specification.  In the example given, LACSN is a type of ACSN so ACSN would be the appropriate code to send and LACSN could also be sent if desired. Code systems that have a hierarchy and rules that enforce that sibling codes are non-overlapping support automated determination of whether of a code is an appropriate extension or not.  Most code systems do not demonstrate these behaviours and determination of whether a code is a valid extension will typically need to be made by a human terminologist. We don't see a need to add any specific clarification here.
    • Lloyd McKenzie / Rob Hausam: 2-0-0

      Identifier.type has an extensible binding to the value set IdentifierType. 

      It is unclear when a code in the value set IdentifierType applies to an identifier. This is important as when one does, one must be sent together with any local code.

      An example of this obscurity is with the code LACSN from code system http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v2-0203.

      Must LACSN be sent with ACSN from the value set IdentifierType as another coding? It looks as if this is true (See Zulip), but there is an 8-year old decision that all v2 code systems are flat. See https://jira.hl7.org/browse/UP-331.

      This flatness and its impact on using Identifier.type needs to be documented in the value set IdentifierType and in the documentation of Identifier.type.

            Unassigned Unassigned
            richardt Richard Townley-O'Neill
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: