Attendees:
Michael Savage
Elliot Silver
Joan Harper
Sheridan Cook
Adesh Maharaj
Harsh Sharma
Ken Sinn
Randy Nonay
Rita Pyle
Shamil Nizamov
Thomas Zhou
The group compared the CA Baseline Profiles to the relevant profiles defined in the Covid 19 At-Home Test Report Spec:
trifolia-fhir.lantanagroup.com/igs/lantana_hapi_r4/homeCovid/index.html
Lab Results Observation Profile
• .code uses LOINC
o Thoughts from Canadian Realm?
o CAB looks to LOINC as preferred, where COVID IG flags as extensible; not a true gap but Canada is a bit more flexible, just worth noting
• .value uses a SNOMED subset
o Binding is required
o CAB binding mandates that IF a codeable system is used, it SHOULD be SNOMED CT
o Worth flagging for further discussion
• .specimen and .device
o They provide a 1..1 cardinality for .id element
o CAB doesn’t have these cardinalities
o Need to know more about how Device and Specimen are meant to be used in the COVID IG (overall workflow)
o Appears that there are specific types of rapid test kits that the IG authors have in mind for .device – likely would need to look further at opening this up for other at-home test kit manufacturers when broadening this out (though did look at some test kits available in Canada and they are found in this registry)
o Even if it does have products that are accessible in Canada, likely a Canadian realm version of this should have a Canadian/global database it points to rather than a US one
• Overall, several CAB elements have MS flags not found in US COVID IG
Will continue the comparison next session (2 weeks from now) with the other common profiles defined in both IGs