Thoughts about using concept sets (instead of dedicated lookup tables) for provider roles and specialties


On today’s design forum we discussed support for Provider Roles in openmrs-core. TRUNK-4791

We’re planning to add two columns to the Provider object:

One open question is whether we want to introduce dedicated lookup tables for these which would be managed by each implementation, or if these value sets should be stored in the concept dictionary, where they might be managed externally, e.g. in CIEL.

So our question for you is, do you think it might be appropriate to have CIEL manage the common OpenMRS concepts for these two value sets?

The FHIR value set for provider role is clearly insufficient (it has maturity level 1).

The FHIR value set for specialty points to a comprehensive set of SNOMED CT codes, which I assume are a superset of what we’d need for OpenMRS. (It’s maturity level 3.)

What do you think? Would these be appropriate to manage in CIEL, or do you think they’d work better as implementation-managed lookup tables?

/cc @burke @jteich

Recommend that they be in CIEL.Andy

1 Like

@akanter do you think the concepts for provider role and speciality along with their respective classes will be available in the next release of CIEL?