I have asked about Questionnaire and CarePlan earlier and someone else has asked another similar question, but my question this time is a bit more specific.
This time I wonder if it's allowed to create a CarePlan using 'detail' rather than reference and then link Questionnaire in to actionResulting. Could I use the actionResulting as a link to the Questionnaire? Would the following resource be valid?
{
"resourceType": "CarePlan",
...,
"activity": [
{
"actionResulting": [
{
"reference": "Questionnaire/copd-form"
}
]
"detail": {
"category": {
"coding": [
{
"system": "http://hl7.org/fhir/care-plan-activity-category",
"code": "observation"
}
]
},
"code": {
"text": "A code for capturing COPD subjective input from patient?"
},
"prohibited": false,
"scheduledTiming": {
"repeat": {
"frequency": 1,
"period": 1,
"periodUnits": "d"
}
},
"performer": [
{
"reference": "Patient/3183"
}
],
"description": "Daily COPD form"
}
}
}
Well, pointing to the Questionnaire would be saying "as a result of this plan, this Questionnaire was designed". I suspect what you'd really want to say is "as a result of this plan, I asked the patient to fill out Questionnaire X" (which would be a DiagnosticOrder) or "as a result of this plan, the patient answered this Questionnaire" (which would be a QuestionnaireResponse). For the first of those, I believe we're still waiting on an extension to allow a DiagnosticRequest to point to the Questionnaire to be filled out.
Related
I'm using Epic's FHIR API (with Argonaut) to search for available appointments, in their private sandbox:
POST /api/FHIR/STU3/Appointment/$find
{
"resourceType": "Parameters",
"parameter": [
{
"name": "startTime",
"valueDateTime": "2022-03-22T08:15:00Z"
},
{
"name": "endTime",
"valueDateTime": "2022-04-02T08:15:00Z"
}
]
}
And this gives me some temporary appointments starting at the desired date and time. No problem. However, if I add service-type as a parameter in the body:
POST /api/FHIR/STU3/Appointment/$find
{
"resourceType": "Parameters",
"parameter": [
{
"name": "startTime",
"valueDateTime": "2022-03-23T15:30:00Z"
},
{
"name": "endTime",
"valueDateTime": "2022-04-02T15:30:00Z"
},
{
"name": "service-type",
"valueCodeableConcept": {
"coding": [
{
"system": "urn:oid:1.2.840.114350.1.13.861.1.7.3.808267.11",
"code": "40111223"
}
]
}
}
]
}
I get a slightly different response. I see temporary appointments with the same slot IDs (different appointment IDs of course), but also see an OperationOutcome at the end of the Bundle:
{
"fullUrl": "urn:uuid:00000000-0007-792f-cd9b-f1f44af2c17c",
"resource": {
"resourceType": "OperationOutcome",
"issue": [
{
"severity": "information",
"code": "value",
"details": {
"coding": [
{
"system": "urn:oid:1.2.840.114350.1.13.0.1.7.2.657369",
"code": "59109",
"display": "An element value is invalid."
}
],
"text": "An element value is invalid."
},
"diagnostics": "1.2.840.114350.1.13.861.1.7.3.808267.11",
"location": [
"/f:service-type(oid)"
],
"expression": [
"service-type (oid)"
]
}
]
},
"search": {
"mode": "outcome"
}
}
The service-type system and code I used here were taken right from the example on Epic's page on the $find API. I see similar results when I use service-types from actual Slots in the Epic sandbox. And if I put in a location-reference, it seems to be ignored and appointments at other locations are sometimes returned. The net result of all this is that it seems only the start and end time are honored when finding appointments.
How can I narrow down the results of a $find call using criteria other than the start and end date?
The source of truth for this API should be the fhir.epic.com documentation, but since this is a common question, I'll post some information here:
$find is not a good option for patient open scheduling. I don't know if that is your use case or not, but it is a common question, so I'll address it anyway.
$find invokes a rules engine that is defined by each healthcare organization. The logic of that rules engine is 100% up to the healthcare organization to define. In order for $find to work for you, you'll need very specific pre-coordination to build the logic in that engine.
The Epic sandboxes only have a very basic rules engine built out. It isn't particularly "real-world"-y. And it is probably good that it isn't, as it serves as an early warning that this API may not be the API you are looking for.
The $find API is a way to support cross-organization scheduling. For example, if you want front desk staff to be able to schedule a follow up visit at another organization across town that they have an established business relationship. For example, if a PCP office wants to schedule a dermatology visit for you at an external org. Note that the user in this case is the organization's scheduling staff, not the patient.
Specifically, Epic's $find support is based on Use Case 1 and 2 in the Argonaut Implementation Guide.
I am using Microsoft Graph API to get mails.
GET /v1.0/me/messages
It returns
{
"#odata.context": "https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/$metadata#users('576552d5-3bc0-42a6-a23d-bfceb405db23')/messages",
"#odata.nextLink": "https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/me/messages?$skip=11",
"value": [
{
"#odata.etag": "W/\"HwAAABYAAACpTc/InBsuTYwTUBb+VIb4AACqi2tx\"",
"id": "AAMkADBlZTUwNTkxLWVmODgtNDVhNC1iZjhlLTdjNjA1ODZlMDI2MgBGAAAAAACUbnk-iwQZRbXMgkfKtmYhBwCpTc-InBsuTYwTUBb_VIb4AAAAAAEMAACpTc-InBsuTYwTUBb_VIb4AACqNTk9AAA=",
"createdDateTime": "2017-12-06T21:57:09Z",
"lastModifiedDateTime": "2017-12-06T21:57:19Z",
"changeKey": "HwAAABYAAACpTc/InBsuTYwTUBb+VIb4AACqi8tx",
"categories": [],
"receivedDateTime": "2017-12-06T21:57:09Z",
"sentDateTime": "2017-12-06T21:56:16Z",
"hasAttachments": false,
"internetMessageId": "<e74a536a53d245e49d779d47f774f4a0#CO2PR00MB0214.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>",
"subject": "Automatic reply: Hi",
"bodyPreview": "I am OOF.",
"importance": "normal",
"parentFolderId": "AAMkADBlZTUwNTkxLWVmODgtNDVhNC1iZjhlLTdjNjA2ODZlMDI5MgAuAAAAAACUbnk-iwQZRbXMgkfKtmYhAQCpTc-InBsuTYwTUBb_VIb4AAAAAAEMAAA=",
"conversationId": "AAQkADBlZTUwNTkxLWVmODgtNDVhNC1iZjhlLTdjNjA2ODZlMDI5MgAQAPekscpearpHmBFbhG0DKuc=",
"isDeliveryReceiptRequested": null,
"isReadReceiptRequested": false,
"isRead": true,
"isDraft": false,
"webLink": "https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADBlZTUwNTkxLWVmODgtNDVhNC1iZjhlLTdjNjA1ODZlMDI5MgBGAAAAAACUbnk%2FiwQZRbXMgkfKtmYhBwCpTc%2FInBsuTYwTUBb%2BVIb4AAAAAAEMAACpTc%2FInBsuTYwTUBb%2BVIb4AACqNTk2AAA%3D&exvsurl=2&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem",
"inferenceClassification": "focused",
"body": {
"contentType": "html",
"content": "hi"
},
"sender": {
"emailAddress": {
"name": "Jack",
"address": "jack#example.com"
}
},
"from": {
"emailAddress": {
"name": "Jack",
"address": "jack#example.com"
}
},
"toRecipients": [
{
"emailAddress": {
"name": "Rose",
"address": "rose#example.com"
}
}
],
"ccRecipients": [],
"bccRecipients": [],
"replyTo": []
}
]
}
I didn't find any field related with determine whether it is an auto reply mail.
Right now I am using
mail.subject.startsWith('Automatic reply:')
to determine whether is auto reply mail in code.
However, it is not reliable. Because sometimes I got mails starting with a different language such as Resposta automática:.
So how to know it is auto reply mail correctly?
As #Horkrine said there is no officially guaranteed way of detecting if an email is an auto reply or not.
But there are two ways that may be useful:
Method 1 : Detect the response time
If you are capable, consider checking the amount of time between the email sent and the response. If that time is within a certain threshold, it is almost certainly an auto reply. Consider a reply received within seconds, for example. This has a lot of correlations with modern-day spam-robot detection techniques.
Method 2 : Keywords
The other way to do it is to look for keywords, just as you are doing now. However, you also have to account for other languages, variations on spelling, misspellings, etc. You will not get everything.
For example:
mail.subject.contains('Automatic') OR mail.subject.contains('Auto-matic') OR mail.subject.contains('Away') OR mail.subject.contains('out of office')
...
OR mail.subject.contains('automática') ...
Rather than typing out such a list, I would recommend doing a quick search on the internet and see if there are any such lists you can copy-paste from, as surely someone has done this sort of thing before and has some free code.
I'm no expert but I don't believe there's any way to determine whether or not an email is an automatic reply unless the email actually contains a string saying "This is an automatic reply" or something.
Just found another interesting API getMailTips, however this can only help determine the auto mail if the other user is Outlook or Office 365 user.
Copy the demo below for convenience.
POST https://graph.microsoft.com/api/beta/users/{id|userPrincipalName}/getMailTips
{
"EmailAddresses": [
"danas#contoso.onmicrosoft.com",
"fannyd#contoso.onmicrosoft.com"
],
"MailTipsOptions": "automaticReplies, mailboxFullStatus"
}
It will return something like
{
"#odata.context":"https://graph.microsoft.com/api/beta/$metadata#Collection(microsoft.graph.mailTips)",
"value":[
{
"emailAddress":{
"name":"",
"address":"danas#contoso.onmicrosoft.com"
},
"automaticReplies":{
"message":"<style type=\"text/css\" style=\"\">\r\n<!--\r\np\r\n\t{margin-top:0;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:0}\r\n-->\r\n</style>\r\n<div dir=\"ltr\">\r\n<div id=\"x_divtagdefaultwrapper\" style=\"font-size:12pt; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif\">\r\n<p>Hi, I am on vacation right now. I'll get back to you after I return.<br>\r\n</p>\r\n</div>\r\n</div>",
"messageLanguage":{
"locale":"en-US",
"displayName":"English (United States)"
}
},
"mailboxFull":false
},
{
"emailAddress":{
"name":"",
"address":"fannyd#contoso.onmicrosoft.com"
},
"automaticReplies":{
"message":""
},
"mailboxFull":false
}
]
}
I'm trying to transcript a short interview audio file with Google Cloud Speech API (asynchronously) but it only transcribes the first half minute of the recording. I had several attempts with recordings longer than one minute and the results were the same. My question is, how can I achieve the full audio transcription for a given file?
You can find one of my use-cases here:
Upload the audio file:
POST https://speech.googleapis.com/v1beta1/speech:asyncrecognize?key={YOUR_API_KEY}
{
"config": {
"encoding": "LINEAR16",
"sampleRate": 16000,
},
"audio": {
"uri": "gs://protean-blend-146812.appspot.com/record__2017_02_02_12_02_17_greg_16000.wav",
}
}
Got the operation number in the response:
{
"name": "8977932499808116064"
}
Make a request with the operation number:
GET https://speech.googleapis.com/v1beta1/operations/8977932499808116064?key={YOUR_API_KEY}
Got the result:
{
"name": "8977932499808116064",
"metadata": {
"#type": "type.googleapis.com/google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.AsyncRecognizeMetadata",
"progressPercent": 100,
"startTime": "2017-02-02T11:21:41.346784Z",
"lastUpdateTime": "2017-02-02T11:23:03.150491Z"
},
"done": true,
"response": {
"#type": "type.googleapis.com/google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.AsyncRecognizeResponse",
"results": [
{
"alternatives": [
{
"transcript": "McGregor you have any stories about being lost that you have all the good advice well let me know in the Golden Triangle drug trafficking across the border",
"confidence": 0.8535113
}
]
},
{
"alternatives": [
{
"transcript": "we came across this Village very very poor Village People and some of the people there were really unfriendly they just started throwing rocks and my friend and we couldn't talk so we backed away went back quickly up the hill",
"confidence": 0.9027881
}
]
},
{
"alternatives": [
{
"transcript": "and we are wondering you know where to go and luckily I can see in the distance there in one tree",
"confidence": 0.8931573
}
]
}
]
}
}
The links, where I made the requests (at 'Try it!' section):
Upload: https://cloud.google.com/speech/reference/rest/v1beta1/speech/asyncrecognize
Operation response: https://cloud.google.com/speech/reference/rest/v1beta1/operations/get
Currently we have a problem to perform a query (or more precisely to design a mapping) in elasticsearch, which help us to perform a query over a relational problem, that we didn't get solved with our non-document orientated thinking from sql.
We want to create a many-to-many relation between different Elasticsearch entries. We need this to edit an entry once and keep all using’s updated to this.
To describe the problem, we'll use the following simple data model:
Broadcast Content
------------ ---------
Id Id
Day Title
Contents [] Description
So we have two different types to index, broadcasts and contents.
A broadcast can have many contents and single contents could also be part of different broadcasts (e.g. repetition).
JSON like:
index/broadcasts
{
"Id": "B1",
"Day": "2014-10-15",
"Contents": [
"C1",
"C2"
]
}
{
"Id": "B2",
"Day": "2014-10-16",
"Contents": [
"C1",
"C3"
]
}
index/contents
{
"Id": "C1",
"Title": "Wake up",
"Description": "Morning show with Jeff Bridges"
}
{
"Id": "C2",
"Title": "Have a break!",
"Description": "Everything about Android"
}
{
"Id": "C3",
"Title": "Late Night Disaster",
"Description": "Comedy show"
}
Now we want to rename the "Late Night Disaster" into something more precisely and keep all references up to date.
How could we approach this? Are there fourther options in ES, like includes in RavenDB?
Nested objects or child-parent relations didn't helped us so far.
What about denormalizing? seems difficult if we come from the SQL mindset, but give you a try, even with millions of documents, LUCENE indexing can help, and renaming will be a batch job.
[
{
"Id": "B1",
"Day": "2014-10-15",
"Contents": [
{
"Title": "Wake up",
"Description": "Morning show with Jeff Bridges"
},
{
"Title": "Have a break!",
"Description": "Everything about Android"
}
]
},
{
"Id": "B2",
"Day": "2014-10-16",
"Contents": [
{
"Title": "Wake up",
"Description": "Morning show with Jeff Bridges"
},
{
"Title": "Late Night Disaster",
"Description": "Comedy show"
}
]
}
]
I'm relatively new to ES and am having difficulty finding really good references or tutorials on the query dsl.
We have a document type of the example below. The query I wish to conduct is thus: "Return all the email_package records that have at least one entities record (one record in the 'entities' array)." And yes I want the complete 'email' record.
Could anyone assist? Also if you could point to a reference or tutorial or cookbook somewhere that addresses question like this, that would be also greatly appreciated.
"email_package": {
"email": {
"date": "2007-02-13T18:24:22-04:00",
"subject": "this is the subject",
"body": "this is the body"
},
"entities": [
{
"Louisville": {
"City": "South"
}
},
{
"Memphis": {
"City": "South"
}
}
]
}
// more 'email_package records follow...
Your document is a bit problematic, since you seems to be nesting objects and giving them different names. If you are not bound to the current structure, I would have changed the mapping into something that is more manageable, and queries will be straight forward, e.g:
"email_package": {
"email": {
"body": "this is the body1",
"date": "2007-02-13T18:24:22-04:00",
"subject": "this is the subject"
},
"entities": [
{
"name": "Louisville"
"City": "South",
},
{
"name": "Memphis"
"City": "South",
}
]
}
Query:
{ "filter": {
"exists": {
"field": "email_package.entities.name"
}
}