-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
UnitCode valueset mapping problems #38
Comments
Check whether the second solution (using unit of drug administration for the dosage) would work for the integrators:
|
After the PMP specs meeting today present integrators (or representatives) for HCI and Cerner stated that the proposed use of https://browser.ihtsdotools.org/?perspective=full&conceptId1=408103002&edition=MAIN&release=&languages=en (or rather the Unit dose child) is also OK for them. Cerner is not even filling the medication amount (packaging, unit of presentation) at the moment. Next step is to present the proposal and provide some JSON examples in hl7ch/ch-emed#234 as related to the UCUM changes to the same value set. |
Added issue to CH EMED repo: hl7ch/ch-emed#250 |
…removal of {Package} and new equivalent snomed codes
After yet another round of feedback with S. Spahni, L-Z. Kaestli and F. Mesia, it was decided that:
|
Integrators contacted (again) for providing units feedback:
Feedback received:
|
Feedbacks:
|
|
done. |
Follow-up of unit code value set concerns taken by CARA. |
After the feedback from Laure-Zoé K. during the PMP Days preparatory tests concerning the problems of the displayed units and trying to find a suitable mapping with the Presco team, it was decided that a solution should be found to have a differentiation between units of presentation like
applicator
and their administration use (for dosage) counterparts, e.g.application
.The first suggestion during a PMP specs bi-weekly meeting was to simply discriminate by usage (a mechanism supported by FHIR), which would mean that we would have different displays for different uses and not only for different languages as it is the case now. This would mean that we would still use the same value set for both units of presentation (packaging) and for the dosages, but that for cases like
applicator
we would displayapplication
instead of applicator. This had the advantage of presenting minimal changes and no actual codes to be changed or added. Disadvantages included the fact that semanticallyapplication
andapplicator
are not the same thing and that it would not be a very elegant solution.During the last PMP specs bi-weekly meeting this solution was rejected by Oliver E. and Michaela Z. who proposed instead that we should open a CH-EMED issue to add whichever codes are missing and keep using the same value set for both packaging and dosage.
Now, after having again a look at this, the current problematic concerning the solution proposed by Oliver and Michaela is the following:
The first solution seems highly unlikely to be accepted to me, since it seems a much better idea to keep to the SNOMED codes as they are for this problematic. There is nothing particularly Swiss about this problem and the international codes will not be touched. Creating a SNOMED complementary system or even worse, forking the whole international one seems overkill to say the least.
The second solution seems more reasonable, but it implies more work now to ensure that this works for all the integrators involved.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: