Difference between revisions of "FHIR Consent April 15, 2016"
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
|| ||[mailto:Jim.Kretz@samhsa.hhs.gov Jim M. Kretz(SAMHSA/CMHS)] | || ||[mailto:Jim.Kretz@samhsa.hhs.gov Jim M. Kretz(SAMHSA/CMHS)] | ||
||||x||[mailto:tarik.idris@icw.de Tarik Idris] | ||||x||[mailto:tarik.idris@icw.de Tarik Idris] | ||
| − | ||||.||[mailto: | + | ||||.||[mailto: ] |
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
# ''(05 minutes)'' '''Agenda Review, Attendance, Approve [http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Consent_April_8,_2016 FHIR CD April 18 Meeting Minutes]''' | # ''(05 minutes)'' '''Agenda Review, Attendance, Approve [http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Consent_April_8,_2016 FHIR CD April 18 Meeting Minutes]''' | ||
#Check Kathleen's updates per April 8 action items: | #Check Kathleen's updates per April 8 action items: | ||
| − | *W5 ordering of elements, | + | *W5 ordering of elements, |
| + | |||
==For Discussion== | ==For Discussion== | ||
Ordering of Contract/CD elements | Ordering of Contract/CD elements | ||
| Line 55: | Line 56: | ||
#TBD Cochaired. | #TBD Cochaired. | ||
#Meeting minutes approved for April 8; Objections: x / Abstentions: x / Approval: x | #Meeting minutes approved for April 8; Objections: x / Abstentions: x / Approval: x | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Discussion Issue | ||
| + | Type vs Sub-type | ||
| + | * Kathleen has reviewed the LOINC codes and has not found anything | ||
| + | The rule is that the tag on the resource that indicates the profile that it conforms to cannot change the meaning of the data. You cannot use the fact that their resource is tag is conformant to the profile. Because we have gone with contract resource, there has to be some element in the structure that differentiates it from other contracts. | ||
| + | Historically I have pointed to one (there can be more than one); we have to in contract/elements of contract to someway differentiate privacy consent directives from anything else that might be a contract. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Kathleen Proposed: Act_Consent_Directive; every code in it is a consent directive. Its generic enough that you can sub-type it as an OPT IN or an OPT OUT. | ||
| + | John: That is reasonable for a small number; the practical question is if I am a service or application that wants to discover the consents available for a patient, I would have to list all of the consent types on the query. If I do a search on the contract resource subject=patient; I would ultimately get additional materials including advance directives…but I only want consents. | ||
| + | Tarik: I want to show user only consent; if I have to do a query by ‘one type’ that’s easier that do a multi-type query… I’d be happier to do content research of one type. I wouldn’t want to show contract about rental of medical equipment; | ||
| + | • Kathleen – but if use the value set of only on consent | ||
| + | • John – value set are only searching on codes | ||
| + | |||
| + | <<viewing Kathleen's spreadsheet>> | ||
| + | |||
| + | At the contract type level – it should have a value set | ||
Latest revision as of 16:25, 15 April 2016
Contents
HL7 CBCC FHIR Consent Working Meeting
Back to FHIR Consent Directive Project Main Page
Attendees
| Member Name | Member Name | Member Name | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x | Johnathan ColemanCBCC Co-Chair | x | Kathleen Connor FM Co-Chair | x | John MoehrkeSecurity Co-Chair | |||
| . | Alexander Mense Security Co-Chair | . | Marty Prahl(SSA) | x | Tarik Idris | |||
| x | Suzanne Gonzales-Webb CBCC Co-Chair | . | Diana Proud-Madruga | . | Pat Pyette | |||
| M'Lynda Owens | . | David Staggs | x | Glen Marshall | ||||
| x | Rob Horn | Beth Pumo | William Kinsley | |||||
| x | Serafina Versaggi | . | Russell McDonell | x | Ken Sinn (Canada) | |||
| Igor Sirkovich | . | [mailto: Andrew Rampolla (SSA)] | x | Mohammad Jafari (VA/ESC) | ||||
| Jim M. Kretz(SAMHSA/CMHS) | x | Tarik Idris | . | [mailto: ] |
Back to FHIR Consent Directive Project Main Page
Agenda
- (05 minutes) Agenda Review, Attendance, Approve FHIR CD April 18 Meeting Minutes
- Check Kathleen's updates per April 8 action items:
- W5 ordering of elements,
For Discussion
Ordering of Contract/CD elements
Minutes
- TBD Cochaired.
- Meeting minutes approved for April 8; Objections: x / Abstentions: x / Approval: x
Discussion Issue
Type vs Sub-type
- Kathleen has reviewed the LOINC codes and has not found anything
The rule is that the tag on the resource that indicates the profile that it conforms to cannot change the meaning of the data. You cannot use the fact that their resource is tag is conformant to the profile. Because we have gone with contract resource, there has to be some element in the structure that differentiates it from other contracts. Historically I have pointed to one (there can be more than one); we have to in contract/elements of contract to someway differentiate privacy consent directives from anything else that might be a contract.
Kathleen Proposed: Act_Consent_Directive; every code in it is a consent directive. Its generic enough that you can sub-type it as an OPT IN or an OPT OUT. John: That is reasonable for a small number; the practical question is if I am a service or application that wants to discover the consents available for a patient, I would have to list all of the consent types on the query. If I do a search on the contract resource subject=patient; I would ultimately get additional materials including advance directives…but I only want consents. Tarik: I want to show user only consent; if I have to do a query by ‘one type’ that’s easier that do a multi-type query… I’d be happier to do content research of one type. I wouldn’t want to show contract about rental of medical equipment; • Kathleen – but if use the value set of only on consent • John – value set are only searching on codes
<<viewing Kathleen's spreadsheet>>
At the contract type level – it should have a value set
