In this post we’re going to take a look at more aspects of coding data. We spent a bit of time in the last post describing why we want to have data coded, how FHIR supports coded data – especially the external terminologies where the concepts are defined – and described some of the RESTful API calls that we could make to retrieve specific Observations and DiagnosticReports from the repository.
But in doing so, we make one key assumption – that all the data in the repository was properly coded with consistent codes – and this is actually not that common in the real world, especially for repositories that are collecting data from different sources. (It’s a bit easier when it is a single lab exposing their data and have complete control over the coding used)
So let’s think about how to manage the situation where there may be different codes that mean the same thing, a good example of which is where labs are using their own coding system rather than an external one such as LOINC.
Ideally what we want to be able to do is ‘map’ all of the codes that mean the same thing to a single concept – preferably a concept from a known codesystem which as LOINC or SNOMED.
We’ll focus on setting up the ‘definitional’ part of the mapping here – in the next post we’ll talk about implementing it.
Read more of this post
Recent Comments