Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- projects:workgroups:ohdsi_fhir_wg_monthly_meeting_on_august_19_2017 [2017/11/21 19:26]
gjiang created
+++ projects:workgroups:ohdsi_fhir_wg_monthly_meeting_on_august_19_2017 [2017/11/21 19:27] (current)
gjiang
@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 M: we map to staging table, and then to OMOP
 H: why do you need a mapping table?
 M: our use cases involve using FHIR as a data feed for research
 ... data coming from different sources
@@ Line 10: / Line 12: @@
 ... we have a staging table that we map to, then map to OMOP
 ... put all external data sources to staging table.
 H: what's the staging table format?
 M: more OMOP-friendly than FHIR-friendly
 ... i have mapping to staging table
@@ Line 19: / Line 23: @@
 ... doesn't solve gaps, but solves some pipeline probs.
 ... there are still some resources i can't map to OMOP
 H: which resources?
 M: workflow-related stuff like Care plan, Appointment
 ... also elements in Device that we can't map into OMOP
 E: OMOP defines the area that folks need for research
 ... we don't need OMOP to be an EMR
 M: not using care plan much
 ... map as much as you can
 ... FHIR wrapper on OMOP
 E: Let' see if we're on the same page for Use Cases [reads UC, below]
 [[
@@ Line 58: / Line 67: @@
 ... does that sound like we're on the same page? [agreement]
 ... staging table has extra workflow stuff?
 M: FHIR populated by EHR, with arbitrary coding system
 ... we use the stating table to standardize codes, e.g. NDC
 ... staging table useful for review.
 E: could others implement the mapping without your staging table?
 M: we map *Georgia Tech* FHIR to OMOP.
 ... when i search in the concept table, and i can't find the right entry, what do i do?
 ... i have to have a concept ID.
 ... i use the source column to preserve the FHIR data
 E: so it's good to have something in the role of staging table
 M: the staging table is customizable.
 ... if there is data we need to preserve but we can't map it, we can create a table.
 E: but we don't need data we can't map
 M: but we may have a VA-specific coding
 E: there are:
 ... 1 (information model) FHIR resources that don't have an analog in OMOP.
 ... 2 (terminology model) resources that map but don't use required terminologies.
 ... are you buying commodity terminology mappings?
 M: at Georgia Tech, we force folks to use the OMOP codings
 E: are OMOP terminology requirements almost universally tighter than in FHIR?
 M: LOINC, SNOMED, CPT, ICD
 ... i don't know how many folks will follow that.
 E: for a high bar, we could say "though shalt use this terminology for X"
 ... for a low bar, we could say "both FHIR and OMOP accept these terminologies"
 H: OMOP and FHIR allow you to define code sets equivalence.
 ... could be useful but tricky
@@ Line 88: / Line 110: @@
 ... we could say that there's a coding X FHIR and import that into OMOP
 ... the UC is: many FHIR resources have a wide variety of code sets
 E: i guess the proposal is to exchange FHIR and OMOP terminology definition structures.
 ... let's do the easy stuff first [structural transformation].
 ... enable terminological transformation if use cases warrant.
 ... depends on level of non-coordination we want to enable.
 H: I can speak with Daniella about that.

Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools