MHD Improvements call today

Skip to first unread message

John Moehrke

Sep 8, 2022, 10:43:31 AMSep 8
to IHE ITI Technical Committee
Given my work on the improvement to support ITI-65 with a FHIR Bundle in addition to the current support for Binary --

My current updates are not all that ready for review. Mostly I have an example of an ITI-65 with a FHIR Document --

Questions for Discussion today

  1. Is this needed now that we have Simplified Publish? -- The last discussion put this question more as an Public Comment question? right?
  2. Need a term for the "Binary or FHIR-Document Bundle"
  3. How should the provideBundle profile change? Do we need to distinguish DocumentReference that point at Binary from those that point at DocumentBundle?
  4. is this a set of structureDefinition Profiles?
  5. might someone help me use an invariant FHIRpath instead?
  6. How prescriptive or informative should we do around persistence of the Document Bundle?
  7. Likely needs to be aligned with the $generate. Might the persistence be more a responsibility of the persistence layer (MHDS, XDS).
  8. Where with MHDS persisting purely as a Document Bundle may be all that is needed,
  9. but XDS requires Binary translation.
  10. Both likely need two DocumentReference for xml vs json seralization?
  11. is there an option needed to make it clear Fhir Document is allowed?
  12. How are Fhir Documents acceptance indicated in CapabilityStatement?
  13. How are constraints on the kind of Fhir Documents (profiles) to be indicated, or is that a concern?

John Moehrke 🔥 Architect: Healthcare Informatics Standards - Interoperability, Privacy, and Security
IHE Co-Chair IT Infrastructure Planning and Technical
HL7 Co-Chair Security WG, FHIR FMG, FHIR facilitator, and 
FHIR Foundation founding member
Employee of By Light -- Contractor to VHA MyHealtheVet  |  M +1 920-564-2067  |

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages