Press "Enter" to skip to content

Comparing US and UK FHIR Implementation Guides

The US and the UK have alternative, national FHIR implementation guides. I’ve written up this post to show some initial results of a comparison I’m undertaking. I’m intending to dig deeper and will update you in future posts.

The US core implementation guide is documented here and the UK national implementation guide (CareConnect) is documented here. Both guides inherit from the same international version of FHIR – STU3, which is documented here.

The purpose of this initial comparison is to look at the differences between how the two countries represent (model) the same concepts. It may be important to identify these differences early, as these differences may make it more difficult for individuals, organisations, providers and IT systems suppliers to operate across borders.

The results of this initial comparison are available as an Excel file download (see bottom of this page) and the following summary;

There are 12 shared resources;
Patient
Practitioner
PractitionerRole
Organization
Location
Encounter
AllergyIntolerance
Condition (Problem)
Procedure
MedicationStatement
Medication
Immunization

There are 5 resources exclusively used in the UK / CareConnect IG;
CapabilityStatement
CodeSystem
ValueSet
Observation
MedicationOrder : ?

There are 10 resources exclusively used in the US Core IG;
DocumentReference
Device
Results : Observation
SmokingStatus : Observation
VitalSigns : Observation
DiagnosticReport
MedicationRequest
CarePlan
CareTeam
Goal

One Comment

  1. Neil Robinson Neil Robinson June 12, 2019

    Great work Rob. Timely given the workshop with Graham Grieve and the proposal that we (UK – well England) look at the Argonaut approach for the base standard for PHRs.

Leave a Reply to Neil Robinson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.