FHIR Workflow Conference Call 3:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)

Agenda

Motion to approve minutes of March 21: Scott/John: unanimous

Talked through several composite order scenarios.
No-one could come up with a use-case where an explicit electronic record of the 'parent' order was necessary.
Existing approach of being able to link leaf-level orders to a protocol/order set and to a parent/requisition identifier seems sufficient
Will wait to confirm the existing approach of treating parents as 'virtual' until Bob Dieterle is able to join the call.

Looked at the OrderSet and Protocol resources.
Will try to have Bryn join a future call to work through the order set resources.
Some confusion about the name "OrderSet" - common usage is to use that term to refer to a collection of patient-specific orders (what we're currently calling a 'composite' order). The resource is only for definitions
Discussion about whether we should expand the scope of the various 'request' resources to also support use within OrderSet/Protocol
- General feeling was "no" - needed data elements are different, permissions are different, etc.
- Alternatives are:
  - Create parallel resources, one for each "request" resource
  - Create a "smaller" number of protocol resources
  - Merge the domain-specific activity attributes into the generic OrderSet/Protocol resource
Discussion about scope - can we cover non-clinical protocols?
Will continue discussion when