CA Core vital signs profiles

Further to the discussion on Canadian Vital signs there is a Canadian consideration for Growth Charts and percentiles. In Canada we used to use the CDC growth charts until about 10 years ago when we switched to WHO growth charts. I think for the most part, America still uses the CDC charts. Should CHI ask Regenstrief to qualify which growth chart is used to generate the percentiles for their LOINC codes ie - to have separate LOINC codes for the percentiles derived by the two methods CDC and WHO? Then we could recommend the WHO LOINC be used in the Canadian baseline vital signs profiles.

This topic is to discuss use cases or rational to include vital signs profiles, that are already defined by the FHIR standard, to CA Core.

Background: The FHIR R4 standard defines Vital Signs profiles derived from the Observation resource - hl7.org/fhir/R4/observation-profiles.html

What we’ve reviewed so far at the Clinical substream WG almost fully aligns with FHIR Vital Signs except minor additions (e.g., few optional Must Support elements). Are there other specific reasons to add vital signs profiles to CA Core, e.g., a certain value set to use, etc.?