Tuesday, September 29, 2015

All the review in the world isn't as good as trying to implement a standard

I'm [back] in the midst of trying to create a C-CDA <--> FHIR translator.  I already know from experience that just looking at a specification won't tell you where the implementation issues might appear ... however, this current experience just serves as an additional reminder.

Some things I've discovered thus far in FHIR's DSTU 2: The Condition and AllergyIntolerance resources take a slightly different approach to capturing status.  Condition separates verification status (provisional, differential, confirmed, refuted, entered-in-error, and unknown) from clinical status (active, relapse, remission, and resolved).  However, AllergyIntolerance groups these together as (active, unconfirmed, confirmed, inactive, resolved, refuted and entered-in-error).  Note the similarity between these three lists.  It indicates that some subsequent harmonization may be needed.

I also noted that AllergyIntolerance simply has onset as a dateTime, whereas condition has dateTime, Age, Period, Range and string.  The onset dates of allergies are just as frequently reported with imprecise dates and times as conditions, perhaps even more so, another place where these two could converge just a little bit better.

That's why I keep on writing code, even if I never expect it to show up in product.


1 comment:

  1. “The history of standards teaches us that once implemented, they’re difficult to remove.” — Tim Hwang