Difference between revisions of "IEHR"
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) (new page) |
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
There may be new requirements for the Act Reference topic (shared messages domain). | There may be new requirements for the Act Reference topic (shared messages domain). | ||
| − | The iEHR project (See [http://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/HowWeWork/sgIEHR.aspx | + | The iEHR project (See [http://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/HowWeWork/sgIEHR.aspx CIHI project page]) is working on HL7 message based SOA Sig/RLUS functionality. |
We already have 90% of these requirements in the shared message domain. There is some concern that there may be incompatible overlap. But the iEHR folks think that what we have is ok, but there’s a few things new that are needed. The existing material is normative, and there is a proposal for R2 already (published in the September 2006 cycle), so this fits into our plans. | We already have 90% of these requirements in the shared message domain. There is some concern that there may be incompatible overlap. But the iEHR folks think that what we have is ok, but there’s a few things new that are needed. The existing material is normative, and there is a proposal for R2 already (published in the September 2006 cycle), so this fits into our plans. | ||
Revision as of 13:24, 5 July 2006
This page documents an INM Workitem, i.e. an issue within scope of the INM Committee that either is still being discussed, or the resolution of which has not yet been included in an INM ballot.
There may be new requirements for the Act Reference topic (shared messages domain).
The iEHR project (See CIHI project page) is working on HL7 message based SOA Sig/RLUS functionality.
We already have 90% of these requirements in the shared message domain. There is some concern that there may be incompatible overlap. But the iEHR folks think that what we have is ok, but there’s a few things new that are needed. The existing material is normative, and there is a proposal for R2 already (published in the September 2006 cycle), so this fits into our plans. iEHR expects to have about 6 new messages.
Motion (May2006 WGM): we are willing to study this and if it’s found to be within our scope then we will accept this proposal as a work item. Rene / Sandy.
Discussion (May2006 WGM): It will be put on the list and we will look for a telecon slot. 15-0-0
