Skip to content
Discussion options

You must be logged in to vote

Hi @bzmrgonz thanks for the message. Our position up until v1.8 has definitely been to use FHIR as a data model because of the reasons stated above. However we have noticed over the years that using FHIR in the database layer has proved too expensive to maintain. OpenCRVS v1.9 will represent a major refactor allowing any vital event to be registered without the need to define FHIR standards for each event.

Between the upcoming releases of OpenCRVS v1.9 & v1.10, we have decided to move FHIR from the database layer to the interoperability layer. To upgrade, any country that is using OpenCRVS v1.8 has to write a database migration unique for their form configuration.

We are supporting all th…

Replies: 1 comment

Comment options

You must be logged in to vote
0 replies
Answer selected by euanmillar
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
2 participants