Patient Administration Call
|PA Work Group Conference Call
Local numbers sent to list
|PA Work Group Conference Call
Gotomeeting - see firstname.lastname@example.org
HL7 Conference Call phone number
|Date: Tuesday, November 07, 2017
Time: 12:00 PM (US Pacific Time, GMT -7)
Quorum Met (Chair+2, Yes/No)? Yes
||Telstra Health, AU
||Health Comm GmbH
- Provider Directory
- Tracker Items
Due to GoToMeeting dial-in problems, we used an ad-hoc Webex
Bob reviewed the proposed elements for Validation resource
validationStatus - value set is draft and likely will be improved
validationType - value set is draft and likely will be improved
sourcePushType - value set is draft and likely will be improved
sourcePushType - should be CodeableConcept not code
target data type - needs to be a reference to a specific element within an instance of a resource.
o Brian working with FHIR-I to sort out how we can refer to an element.
o For CodeableConcept and Identifiers, we can index based on the system (for example), but for other data types that are lists, we need to sort out how indexes into lists work as the list indexes changes. For example, if we validate that the second name in the Practitioner.name list is the practitioner's legal name, if the number or sort order of the Practitioner.name property changes, we need to ensure we aren't referencing the wrong thing.
validationStatus, "attested" means that someone is "claiming" that some data is correct.
How can we indicate the distinction between who is attesting or claiming some data, vs. who is validating the data.
Bob to look into defining something like "attestation source".
attestationSource is distinct from the primarySource, as some entity can be providing (attesting) the data on behalf of a 3rd party that owns the data (primary source)
validationProcess Needs to document what process (i.e. how rigorous) was used to validate the data.
Bob reviewed the Restriction (BackboneElement) extension
- target has the same issues as the Validation resource above.
What does retrospective really mean? Can we get a better description?
The intent is that the restrospective flag means that the restrictions should apply to all previous versions of the FHIR resource.
Is there ever a case where we don't want to a restriction to apply to all previous versions? Implementers would normally always apply restrictions to all versions, because otherwise you aren't really restricting access to data. Clients could just access the version history and get the restricted data there.
Brian commented that we are missing the "who is being restricted"
I.e. based on a given out-of-band Data Use Agreement, which user types are restricted vs. which aren't.
Consider adding a "who is restricted" with a value set that needs to be defined.
14099 - Guidance on how to request a new identifier (e.g. MRN)
• Drew's suggestion was to interpret an Identifier with only an assigner (no ID) as a request to create identifiers for that assigner.
The meeting next week is canceled due to Dev Days.
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
- Next telecom meeting: Tuesday 21. Nov 2017
Return to PA Main Page
© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.