honeymoose
/
hapi-fhir
mirror of https://github.com/hapifhir/hapi-fhir.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Loinc updates

This commit is contained in:
jamesagnew 2018-03-12 06:25:30 -04:00
parent 30cd63b929
commit a6bab6095f
1 changed files with 15 additions and 38 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

53
LOINC_NOTES.txt
View File

@ -8,54 +8,31 @@ TODO:
Comments for Loinc:
Overall
- ValueSet and ConceptMap resources have a spot for copyright and
contact information. Are there official values for these?
- ValueSet and ConceptMap resources have a spot for copyright and contact information. Are there official values for these?
Answer Lists
- Per the notes, there is no way in FHIR currently to map answer lists to
codes based on context. For this reason, I am ignoring any entries in
LoincAnswerListLink_Beta_1.csv where the "ApplicableContext" context is
not empty. Is this correct?
- Per the notes, there is no way in FHIR currently to map answer lists to codes based on context. For this reason, I am ignoring any entries in LoincAnswerListLink_Beta_1.csv where the "ApplicableContext" context is not empty. Is this correct?
Parts
- Only parts with a status of "ACTIVE" are being imported, any others are
ignored.
- The PartTypeName (e.g. "ADJUSTMENT") is ignored as there is no corresponding
property in loinc.xml
- PartDisplayName is not mapped
- Part links are not currently processed (it's not clear to me how to model
these in FHIR, as CodeSystem.hierarchyMeaning has to be only one of 'is-a'
or 'part-of' and presumably the 'is-a' relationship is more important.
- Only parts with a status of "ACTIVE" are being imported, any others are ignored. Does this make sense?
- The PartTypeName (e.g. "ADJUSTMENT") is ignored as there is no corresponding property in loinc.xml
- PartDisplayName does not have an obvious mapping to FHIR
- Part links are not currently processed (it's not clear to me how to model these in FHIR, as CodeSystem.hierarchyMeaning has to be only one of 'is-a' or 'part-of' and presumably the 'is-a' relationship is more important.
Part Mappings
- I have made LOINC the source and SCT the target for the mappings in the
ConceptMap resource. Does this seem like the appropriate orientation?
- A canonical URI should be defined for the LOINC->SCT mapping ConceptMap
resource. I have hardcoded "http://loinc.org/loinc-to-snomed" for now, but
we should discuss what is appropriate.
- I have made LOINC the source and SCT the target for the mappings in the ConceptMap resource. Does this seem like the appropriate orientation?
- A canonical URI should be defined for the LOINC->SCT mapping ConceptMap resource. I have hardcoded "http://loinc.org/loinc-to-snomed" for now, but we should discuss what is appropriate.
RSNA Playbook
- A canonical URI should be defined for the "all RSNA playbook codes" ValueSet.
I have hardcoded "http://loinc.org/rsna-codes" for now but we should discuss
what is appropriate.
- A canonical URI should be defined for the "all RSNA playbook codes" ValueSet. I have hardcoded "http://loinc.org/rsna-codes" for now but we should discuss what is appropriate.
- A name for the "RSNA Playbook" ValueSet is needed.
- Just to confirm, the "all RSNA playbook codes" ValueSet should contain the
loinc codes (e.g. "17787-3") and not the part codes (e.g. "LP199995-4")?
- A codesystem URI for radlex RID and RPID codes is needed (currently
"http://rid" and "http://rpid" are used as placeholders since I'm assuming
these exist somewhere.
- For mappings from loinc part codes to RadLex RIDs, are the codes considered
equivalent (or would they be wider/narrower). They look equivalent to me.
- Just to confirm, the "all RSNA playbook codes" ValueSet should contain the loinc codes (e.g. "17787-3") and not the part codes (e.g. "LP199995-4")?
- A codesystem URI for radlex RID and RPID codes is needed (currently "http://rid" and "http://rpid" are used as placeholders since I'm assuming these exist somewhere.
- For mappings from loinc part codes to RadLex RIDs, are the codes considered equivalent (or would they be wider/narrower). They look equivalent to me.
Document Ontology
- Per the SOW, "A value set containing terms in the LOINC Document Ontology
will be created". Just to confirm, entries in this ValueSet are therefore
LOINC terms (such as "11488-4 / Consultation Note") as opposed to part
codes?
- Need to define a URI for the document ontology ValueSet. Currently I am
using "http://loinc.org/document-ontology-codes"
- Per the SOW, "A value set containing terms in the LOINC Document Ontology will be created". Just to confirm, entries in this ValueSet are therefore LOINC terms (such as "11488-4 / Consultation Note") as opposed to part codes?
- Need to define a URI for the document ontology ValueSet. Currently I am using "http://loinc.org/document-ontology-codes"
Top 2000
- Need to define a URI for both ValueSets. Currently I am using
"http://loinc.org/top-2000-lab-results-us" and
"http://loinc.org/top-2000-lab-results-si"
- Need to define a URI for both ValueSets. Currently I am using "http://loinc.org/top-2000-lab-results-us" and "http://loinc.org/top-2000-lab-results-si"