I just tried this LOINC answer list implicit value set query on my HAPI 6.4.4 JPA server instance:
https://fhir.hausamconsulting.com/r4/ValueSet/$expand?url=http://loinc.org/vs/LL4938-8
And I got these results from the $expand:
{
"resourceType": "ValueSet",
"id": "LL4938-8",
"meta": {
"extension": [ {
"url": "http://hapifhir.io/fhir/StructureDefinition/valueset-expansion-message",
"valueString": "ValueSet was expanded using an expansion that was pre-calculated at (unknown)"
} ],
"versionId": "2"
},
"url": "http://loinc.org/vs/LL4938-8",
"status": "active",
"compose": {
"include": [ {
"system": "http://loinc.org",
"concept": [ {
"code": "LA65-8",
"display": "Improved"
}, {
"code": "LA6635-2",
"display": "Stabilized"
}, {
"code": "LA66-6",
"display": "Deteriorated"
}, {
"code": "LA9041-0",
"display": "Resolved"
}, {
"code": "LA65-8",
"display": "Improved"
}, {
"code": "LA6635-2",
"display": "Stabilized"
}, {
"code": "LA66-6",
"display": "Deteriorated"
}, {
"code": "LA9041-0",
"display": "Resolved"
} ]
} ]
},
"expansion": {
"identifier": "91faf34a-28a2-489c-96ce-554fe7a73aa3",
"timestamp": "2023-07-24T03:49:37+00:00",
"total": 0,
"offset": 0,
"parameter": [ {
"name": "offset",
"valueInteger": 0
}, {
"name": "count",
"valueInteger": 1000
} ]
}
}
The obvious things that I'm noticing here are:
- In the 'compose' element (which the server apparently generates), each of the concept instances and codes are being listed twice. That seems odd, and certainly isn't a useful situation or the normal expectation.
- The valueset expansion message states that "ValueSet was expanded using an expansion that was pre-calculated at (unknown)". It's not obvious when or how that pre-calculation is being done.
- But even though the 'compose' is present and the expansion is "pre-calculated", no actual expansion results are being returned. The 4 unique concepts in the 'compose' should have been returned in the expansion (whether it was pre-calculated or not).
The public HAPI server doesn't appear to have LOINC loaded, so I couldn't test this there. It's not clear to me if this represents common (undesirable) behavior and warrants submitting an issue - or if it may at least in part be specific to my particular server instance, and therefore needs something to be done locally (e.g. fix indexing or something else?).
Rob