Extensions and CodeSystems #5
Conversation
To review against profile for patient to identify most suitable resource
StructureDefinition/Extension-Genomics-Topology.StructureDefinition.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
StructureDefinition/Extension-Genomics-Morphology.StructureDefinition.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
KazeemHamzat
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some of the Extensions and Value sets have their status as ACTIVE instead of DRAFT.
Hi Kazeem, as mentioned in the specific comments, these extensions/valuesets have been marked as active as they are active in the IG where they were taken from, which I wanted to reflect in this IG. Happy to change this if it is an issue though |
| "resource": { | ||
| "resourceType": "ServiceRequest", | ||
| "id": "66c519dd-423f-4238-89c8-91c5be52f330", | ||
| "extension": [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
New Extension required in Genomics on ServiceRequest
| { | ||
| "type": "RelatedPerson", | ||
| "profile": "https://fhir.hl7.org.uk/StructureDefinition/UKCore-RelatedPerson" | ||
| "profile": "https://fhir.nhs.uk/StructureDefinition/NHSDigital-RelatedPerson-Genomics" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added new profile for RelatedPerson to support extensions, covering requirements from Genomics
| @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Example CodeSystem, to be updated after review from Genomics
| @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To categorise a ServiceRequest as NHS or private for reimbursement
| @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Contact for questions relating to a ServiceRequest where this differs from the requester
|
Many of the elements in profiles are constrained out. If this is a logical model then this is ok but I don't think this is good practice for an actual profile I think we need to highlight elements we expect to be used either as mandatory or as must support. |
| @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Additional field required on RelatedPerson
| @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Additional field required on RelatedPerson
| @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Additional field required on RelatedPerson, will look to add an additional target on UKCore extension in future
| @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Additional field required on RelatedPerson
KevinMayfield
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The inclusion of Practitioner and Organization resources in the example Bundle look like they don't follow
https://simplifier.net/guide/NHSDigital/Home/Policy/Identifiers.guide.md?version=current
So when only a national identifier and name is present. Resource identifiers should be used.
This applies to Practitioner resources and probably Organization.
We shouldn't be encouraging reference information to be distributed via messaging.
It makes it harder to developers to implement.
Some resources have been added as examples for discussion with NHSE (e.g. mCODE extensions).
Some changes may also be reverted after discussion with UKCore e.g. extensions to RelatedPerson, but these have been added as a temporary measure to satisfy the requirements of the NHSE GU.