How to add valueset?
# supportb
bubbly_puppy_96894
12/14/2023, 2:47 AMFor Practitioner Qualification Code, I want to use the values in http://hl7.org/fhir/ValueSet/provider-qualification. I'm open to using other/similar Valuesets for this resource (Practitioner).
I've looked for documenation and tried various things in local medplum app (http://localhost:3002/ValueSet?_count=20&_fields=id,_lastUpdated,name,title,status&_offset=0&_sort=-_lastUpdated). I've also rebuilt my Value Sets in super admin (http://localhost:3002/admin/super), but I am not getting Practitioner Qualification codes in the form (http://localhost:3002/Practitioner/new).
What is the correct way to add Qualification valueset for Practitioners?
I'm not sure if editing these files is the intended way (packages/definitions/dist/fhir/r4/valuesets.json, packages/definitions/dist/fhir/r4/dataelements.json, packages/definitions/dist/fhir/r4/profiles-resources.json) to set the Valueset on a Resource.
Thanks
bubbly_puppy_96894
12/16/2023, 4:33 AM@rahul1 I found a bug https://github.com/medplum/medplum/issues/3563 with the codesystem & valueset
and created a PR fix using the latest from hl7.org https://github.com/medplum/medplum/pull/3564
r
rahul1
12/18/2023, 1:03 AMHi @bubbly_puppy_96894 , good find! Thank you for the contribution.
So it turns out that is not a bug per se , but definitely confusing behavior.
The official FHIR spec actually specifies v2-2.7-0360 as the terminology for this element, with a binding strength of "example". https://hl7.org/fhir/R4/practitioner.html
rahul1
12/18/2023, 1:03 AMHowever, this valueset is not what is shipped with the base specification, whcih makes it less useful
rahul1
12/18/2023, 1:05 AMI think the change in this PR seems reasonable, and we'll have the eng team review and sign off
rahul1
12/18/2023, 1:05 AMThanks again for taking the time to contribute
b
bubbly_puppy_96894
12/18/2023, 10:51 PM@rahul1 thanks for the update. the problem is that URL https://terminology.hl7.org/ValueSet/v2-2.7-0360 is 404. is that an hl7.org issue?
bubbly_puppy_96894
12/18/2023, 10:51 PMThe URL comes from https://hl7.org/fhir/R4/v2/0360/2.7/index.html
bubbly_puppy_96894
12/18/2023, 10:52 PMwhereas this resolves without issue https://terminology.hl7.org/5.4.0/ValueSet-v2-0360.html
bubbly_puppy_96894
12/18/2023, 10:54 PMIn the issue, I mention how medplum's $expand fails with the 2.7-0360 url https://github.com/medplum/medplum/issues/3563
r
rahul1
12/18/2023, 10:55 PMGood question @bubbly_puppy_96894 . Before updating the data definitions, I'm trying to do a pass of due diligence. Those definitions come straight from FHIR, so I just want to make sure there isn't a bug in our
expandb
bubbly_puppy_96894
12/18/2023, 10:57 PMyeah, I understand.
v2-2.7-0360400 (Bad Request)r
rahul1
12/19/2023, 7:39 PMHi @bubbly_puppy_96894 , I looked into this and it turns out we weren't ingesting those v2 tables at all. I think the right solution would be to make sure our server is building those during startup.
Would it be ok if I opened up another PR to try that ingestion?
b
bubbly_puppy_96894
12/19/2023, 11:07 PMsounds good. @rahul1 I think everyone could use working
Practitioner.qualification.coder
rahul1
12/20/2023, 11:10 PMTotally Agree. Still working on this and hoping to give you an udpate soon
rahul1
12/21/2023, 6:11 AMHi Rex, we have fixed this in a different PR (https://github.com/medplum/medplum/pull/3595)
The root issue was that we were not ingesting some of the code systems from HL7v2 . The Medplum service now ingests those on startup, and they should show up in the typehead
b
bubbly_puppy_96894
12/22/2023, 12:28 AMThanks @rahul1 !
149 Views