>Maybe so, but I would argue a lot of the key information isn't that different for each type of medical event. Well, I mean, that's pretty much the entire basi

>Maybe so, but I would argue a lot of the key information isn't that different for each type of medical event. Well, I mean, that's pretty much the entire basis of the HL7 segment paradigm. >- Patient it relates to This is a much, much, much harder problem than you'd think. Patients are going to have multiple identifiers attached to them and resolving them cleanly is literally an industry of its own within healthcare. And that's precisely why it's a common problem during integrations - which identifier gets used how is generally a workflow and design decision made for a specific site-level implementation. >- Date it happened (possibly date it started and date it ended instead) >- Who did/prescribed/ordered it These usually aren't sticking points for integration because they're the easy ones to get people to agree on. >- List of medical codes+coding system tuples that happened on that event These aren't really standardized at the industry level beyond ICD-10 diagnosis codes. Things like insurance provider codes, procedure codes, order codes, etc are individual to sites; even things like ethnicity and gender codes are variable by location. I don't want it to sound like I'm down on FHIR or that I think HL7v2 is the greatest thing since sliced bread because I don't think either is the case. The point I'm getting at is that there are huge problems with healthcare data interchange that just plain aren't going to be solved by a better interchange format.