US Core offers some great examples of ValueSet bindings. This Implementation Guide was created for US patients and US use cases, and the patient profile perfectly illustrates this. https://lnkd.in/epuKSs3x There are extensions for race, ethnicity and tribalAffiliation — all bound to custom ValueSets that are specific to the US population. Here are examples from the ValueSet bound to the “race” extension: - American Indian or Alaska Native - Black or African American - Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander While an Irish, French or Australian Implementation Guide might also contain a profile that defines race, none of them would contain these values. The same applies to a patient’s “tribalAffiliation”. This is not an input box I’ve ever seen on a form in a hospital in Europe. The TribalEntityUS ValueSet: https://lnkd.in/e4BBGJi3 The above examples illustrate how powerful ValueSet binding can be in FHIR when used for a specific use case. Many FHIR Implementation Guides like US Core exist at the national level — though not as many as there should be. They also exist at the domain level, enforcing uniformity by restricting values to carefully defined ValueSets. FHIR can be used “as is” without incorporating any Implementation Guides or profiles, but it’s at its most powerful when used with strict profiles that enforce data conformity. Implementation Guide Registry: https://lnkd.in/ecbgYuxV
The other important aspect is the usage of cross-referential entities which FHIR in itself is based on. For example, the Encounter.location.location to Location.managingOrganization to Organization. Without understanding the relevancy of such occurrences you can miss the bigger picture. Following with the value set topic, here's a simple example of ValueSet: ServiceDeliveryLocationRoleType (e.g., Echocardiography lab) provides further insights on the encounter via ValueSet: US Core Encounter Type (e.g., a CPT code of 93306) with the organizational location type. To the points made here its critical to look at the whole picture (i.e., elemental conditions and related associations). Example based on https://hl7.org/fhir/us/core/profiles-and-extensions.html#profiles
Ward Weistra
5mo
This https://hl7.org/fhir/us/core/StructureDefinition/us-core-patient or this https://simplifier.net/packages/hl7.fhir.us.core/6.1.0/files/2080253 are probably better links for the US Core Patient profile 🙂
Erik Vermeulen
5mo
I noticed several definitions of the TribalEntityUS ValueSet (via the posted link to simplifier) are incomplete. And according to wikipedia the Hannahville Indian Community (code 99) is not residing in Wisconsin but in Michigan.
We see a number of implementers navigate to HL7 FHIR CI-Build page - please understand this page (US Core 7.0) is under active spec/standards development. If you are a developer or implementer - please ask "what version of the profile or IG" are we working to implement... for US Core here is a link to the version history - https://hl7.org/fhir/us/core/history.html with many US implementers are still using US Core 3.1.1, progressive implementers are looking at HTI-1 and US Core 6.1.0 (skipping or by-passing US Core 4.0.0, and 5.0.1). We do not see any production implementation of US Core 7.0 (beta) at this time.