Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-40366

HealthcareService category and type bindings -- should extend plan-net bindings

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Icon: Change Request Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Icon: Medium Medium
    • Human Services Directory (FHIR)
    • 1.0.0-ballot
    • Human and Social Services
    • HSDHealthcareService
    • Artifacts Summary
    • Hide

      We will create a new HealthcareService profile aligned with rather than derived from the HealthcareService profile with Plannet (Copy and paste current constraints via fish)

      We will apply example bindings to type and category using current plan net value sets

      We will document "best approach" for terminology usage (per comments)

      We will not leverage open eligibility or LA 211 in bindings

       

      Factors

      No option for abstract profile - base profile has extensible

      Long term terminology out look is in flux (See comments)

       

      We will update the HealthcareService category and type bindings to be extensible.
      We will create two value set - one for category and one for type based on Open Eligibilty
      We will bind to category and type using grouping value set.

      Factors
      Example bindings are not proper to apply to existing extensible bindings within FHIR
      Example binding by their nature according to FHIR experts are not conducive to semantic interoperability
      Open Eligibility is open source code system with creative commons licensing acceptable by HL7 and THO
      Unfortunately, LA 211 code system is not available due to business factors beyond our control

      While numerous options have been investigated, this solution is the recommend approach by the project industry sponsor - Administrative Community of Living (ACL)

      Show
      We will create a new HealthcareService profile aligned with rather than derived from the HealthcareService profile with Plannet (Copy and paste current constraints via fish) We will apply example bindings to type and category using current plan net value sets We will document "best approach" for terminology usage (per comments) We will not leverage open eligibility or LA 211 in bindings   Factors No option for abstract profile - base profile has extensible Long term terminology out look is in flux (See comments)   We will update the HealthcareService category and type bindings to be extensible. We will create two value set - one for category and one for type based on Open Eligibilty We will bind to category and type using grouping value set. Factors Example bindings are not proper to apply to existing extensible bindings within FHIR Example binding by their nature according to FHIR experts are not conducive to semantic interoperability Open Eligibility is open source code system with creative commons licensing acceptable by HL7 and THO Unfortunately, LA 211 code system is not available due to business factors beyond our control While numerous options have been investigated, this solution is the recommend approach by the project industry sponsor - Administrative Community of Living (ACL)
    • Sean Muir / Chirag Bhatt : 22 - 0 - 5
    • Clarification
    • Compatible, substantive

      PlanNetHealthcareService provides extensible bindings for these two fields.

      HSDSHealthCareService provides example bindings (to empty value sets).

      I think the correct way to do this would be to extend the PlanNet bindings as that design anticipated with additional categories and types to meet your use case, and document their use.

            Unassigned Unassigned
            saul_kravitz Saul Kravitz
            Watchers:
            8 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: