Skip to content

Conversation

@Ashwin-nictiz
Copy link
Contributor

@Ashwin-nictiz Ashwin-nictiz commented Apr 18, 2023

TODO:

Add text explaining why we do not map the MaritalStatus concept.

@jd-nictiz jd-nictiz marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2023 13:20
<type>
<code value="dateTime" />
</type>
<mapping>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this mapping really justified? The corresponding Observation.component:child.code is 67822003, which indicates the child as a whole; here the value only reflects the birth date, so I'd expect LOINC code 2112-8 (or even better a more specific one) as the accompanying .code. Wouldn't it conceptually be better to have a .component only indicating the child, with an extension to represent the birth date (even though I agree that another extension is not ideal)?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants