20170202 OO FHIR conCall
| HL7 OO on FHIR (for Orders and Observations) Call in details: |
Date: 2017/02/02 2015 - 02:00 PM (Eastern Time, GMT -04 DST) | |
| Quorum = chair + 4 yes | ||
| Co chairs | Chair | Notetaker | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Riki Merrick | |||
| Rob Hausam | X | ||
| Lorraine Constable | |||
| Patrick Lloyd | |||
| Ken McKaslin | |||
| Hans Buitendijk |
| Attendees | |
|---|---|
| X | Eric Haas |
| X | Riki Merrick |
| Hans Buitendijk | |
| X | Jose Costa-Teixicara |
| Dan Rusk | |
| Jonathan Harber | |
| David Burgess | |
| Lloyd McKenzie | |
| X | Rob Hausam |
| X | Andrea Pitkus |
| Francois Marcary | |
| X | Robert Dieterle |
| X | Marti V |
| Ron Shapiro | |
| Kathy Walsh | |
| Todd Cooper | |
| Cindy Johns | |
| Bob Miius | |
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from
- Agenda
Event pattern Alignment to Observation
- 10300, 10436, 10344 Review status code alignment between DR and Obs see spreadsheet.
- reopened #10436 to resolved and approved alignment. also part of tracker #10300
- #10299 Observation event pattern alignment. (see file: observation-event- pattern.xml)
- Motion to add timing as a choice for event.occurrence, so one can capture times like 'dinner', etc – created and applied #12767
Eric Haas, Andrea Pitkus, no further discussion, against: 0, abstain:0, in favor: 6
- Event.notDone and event.notDoneReason, we also have Observation.dataAbsentReason – can we just map to that for both of these Put this into the result with a code test not done – but that hampers sometimes use of the expected result type coming across, for example on numeric results would now have text
- #11078 – the request is how to document when something was looked for, but not seen/found – this should be handled as an observation with proper terminology
- Motion to find not persuasive Eric Haas, Bob Dieterle, further discussion: is there another resource he is thinking about? We think this is true for observation – applies to lab, against:0, abstain: 0, in favor: 6
- #9038: related – loses conduction of relationship to the parent – e.g. the susceptibility result
cannot be related to the organism it is for – so create a part of extension instead of using related – related is more of a sibling set up, but the Observation.partOf extension can reference many other resources, not just the same kind of resources – not every type can be part of every resource need to flesh out these thoughts – need more participation in this discussion and compare to related codes no resolution
- Device tracker items discuss Monday Yes on UDI
UDI related trackers
- 11108 Device Follow-Up Need more statuses to cover implantables - 2016-09 core #262
- 11106 Device Follow-Up How does the sending system know the jurisdiction from the string? - 2016-09 core #260
- 11105 Device Follow-Up UDI could be multiple barcodes - 2016-09 core #259
- 11050 Device Follow-Up Add support for a way to distinguish user-entered from a machine-read AIDC Device.udiCarrier - 2016-09 core #69
- 11049 Device Follow-Up Clarify any AIDC support guidance Device.udiCarreir (e.g. escaping deliminters and special characters). - 2016-09 core #68
AND REVISIT 11109
To meet all these udi requests proposal is to apply the follow structure to Device:
udi backbone element DI 0..1 string jurisdiction 0..1 uri carrierHRF 0..1 string carrierAIDC 0..1 Attachment ( for base 64 encoding and could also be a picture too!) barcodeSystem 0..1 uri handEntered 0..1 boolean or codeable (or see Bob Dieterle's list of codes)
the PI is scattered throughout the other Device elements some of these could be extensions
Also status for implants as a standard extension - see spreadsheet.
Back to OO_on_FHIR
