A few issues have arisen in the community regarding the “code
validation” use case. Currently, the FHIR “validate” query action returns,
essentially, a binary yes/no response. Could you please consider the questions
below and provide your recommendations? Cross-posted to the Terminology Services forum.
Should the validate query action also return the
basic identifiers (name,
code, description, etc.) of the matched Concept (if any) for the entry
code/system pair?
Should the return of the basic identifiers be
part of a separate query action, say “lookup”, rather than part of the “validate”
action?
Should either of the above options support bulk
(more than one entry code) in the same transaction? Would this be of value to the IL?
Here is my take on these questions, others may have different views.
I don’t think so as the validate query should be really fast as many of these calls may need to occur in a short amount of time (for example when validating all codes within a CDA document)
That sounds like a good idea to me, then if more details are needed they can be explicitly fetched.
This would be of value to the IL as we will likely need to validate a number of codes at once to validate all terminology in a single CDA document and this may have an efficiency benefit. However, this isn’t strictly required as the same could be accomplished with multiple calls to number 1, we would just gain some efficiency.
I hope this helps. I look forward to hearing others views.
A few issues have arisen in the community regarding the “code
validation” use case. Currently, the FHIR “validate” query action returns,
essentially, a binary yes/no response. Could you please consider the questions
below and provide your recommendations? Cross-posted to the Terminology Services forum.
Should the validate query action also return the
basic identifiers (name,
code, description, etc.) of the matched Concept (if any) for the entry
code/system pair?
Should the return of the basic identifiers be
part of a separate query action, say “lookup”, rather than part of the “validate”
action?
Should either of the above options support bulk
(more than one entry code) in the same transaction? Would this be of value to the IL?
Thanks,
Jack
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIE Architecture” group.