Fixed code sets in FHIR

One of the common use cases for FHIR is going to be to create a ‘proxy’ or ‘façade’ FHIR server that provides a FHIR interface against an existing data source – and this is what we are doing at Orion Health in front of our Patient Administration System. (We’re actually building a rather cool mobile medication administration app – hope I’m allowed to say that!).

One of the issues we’ve come across is where there is a property with datatype of code and a fixed set of code values (a codeset) – such as  MedicationPrescription.status.

The problem we are facing is that in the ‘back end’ system, this field is a configurable set of values – and it often won’t match the values defined in FHIR. This is bad enough for optional properties, but even worse when the property is a required one – such as MedicationAdministration.status.

Now there are very good reasons why the workgroup that designed these resources have made the codes a fixed set – they are important properties that a recipient must understand to safely use the resource – and we are about interoperability after all. But it’s still a problem we need to solve.

I can think of a few possibilities for us.

 Option 1 is to change the codeset in the backend system to that defined in the FHIR resource – perhaps a bit unlikely…

 Option 2. Ideally, every value in the back end system can be mapped to one of the values from the fixed code set – with an acceptable loss of fidelity. Then, you can create an extension to hold the original value. In this way a recipient who doesn’t understand your custom codeset can still safely process the resource (using the defined property) but internal clients can apply whatever extra logic is supported by the enhanced set in the extension.

For example, the MedicationPrescription resource has a status property of which one of the values is ‘on-hold’. If the backend system has a number of values that could mean this (on-hold due to an operation, on-hold due to other therapy, on-hold because the pharmacy has run out) then you can set the status value to on-hold, and the extension can contain the more precise value. Incidentally, this might be one of the few places where a Coding datatype is appropriate.

 Option 3. If you have values that simply cannot be mapped in this way then you can use a modifierExtension on the property itself to carry the extra value. This severely reduces the interoperability of your resource of course, as a recipient must be able to understand and process your custom value – and should reject the resource if it cannot.

(It may not have been obvious that resource properties can have extensions as well as the resource themselves – check out the spec for more details. In fact, it’s possible to extend a datatype if you need to!)

If you do find yourself in this position, it would pay to ask a question through one of the various FHIR support channels – you might get advice about a value you can use, or if your use case is compelling enough the codeset can be extended in FHIR itself.

 So there you go. A price of being interoperable is that you have to conform to a set of agreed behavior and content – and sometimes that means compromise. Hopefully there will always be some way to achieve the business requirements, and especially in this DSTU phase of FHIR changes to the spec are quite possible – if there is a good enough reason.

About David Hay
I'm a Product Strategist at Orion Health, Chair emeritus of HL7 New Zealand and co-Chair of the FHIR Management Group. I have a keen interest in health IT, especially health interoperability with HL7 and the new FHIR standard.

2 Responses to Fixed code sets in FHIR

  1. Koray Atalag says:

    Hi David, you are essentially hitting the ‘impedance mismatch’ problem…

    Ideally these should be equivalent or at least mappable to each other (albeit with different granularity/fidelity) as you indicate. I reckon you can also handle cases where this kind of mapping is problematic by extensions or by altering the property holding the value with compromise to ‘perfect’ interoperability. However there still exists the ‘wicked problem’ of different values for the same/very similar properties or concepts…This ambiguity most probably exists in real clinical medicine too – your typical clinician is not the one accepting others’ definitions easily 😉

    Maybe there should be a way of flagging cases where the semantics do not quite match perfectly for patient safety reasons. Just thinking…

  2. Pingback: Extending fixed code sets – revisited | Hay on FHIR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: