This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "20170712 inm agenda"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Agenda) |
m (→Agenda) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Some Events defined by FHIR are assigned to one of these categories, but others are not able to be categorized in advance, and the category must be determined by the content, context, or use case. | Some Events defined by FHIR are assigned to one of these categories, but others are not able to be categorized in advance, and the category must be determined by the content, context, or use case. | ||
<pre>--------------------------------- Suggested Added text -------------------------------------------------------------------- | <pre>--------------------------------- Suggested Added text -------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| − | When it is necessary to receive an acknowledgement from multiple parties for a message of notification it becomes a message of consequence: The sender will have to send multiple messages, even if they have the same endpoint. | + | 2.24.1.1.1 Example: Elevation from Notification to Consequence |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | When it is necessary to receive an acknowledgement from multiple parties for a message of notification it becomes a message of consequence: The sender will have to send multiple messages, even if they have the same endpoint. | |
| − | + | Use case: | |
| − | + | * Local protocol requires notification of all lab values | |
| − | + | * Local protocol requires that critical values must be acknowledged by both the ordering and primary provider. | |
| + | * Therefore a message of notification becomes a message of consequence. | ||
| + | * Two messages must be sent, each with a unique acknowledgement. | ||
| + | |||
</pre> | </pre> | ||
Revision as of 21:04, 30 June 2017
Agenda
- Management
- Mission and Charter
- Methodology
- FHIR 10619
2.24.1.1 The impact of the content of a message.
| Consequence | The message represents/requests a change that should not be processed more than once; e.g., making a booking for an appointment. |
| Currency | The message represents a response to query for current information. Retrospective processing is wrong and/or wasteful. |
| Notification | The content is not necessarily intended to be current, and it can be reprocessed, though there may be version issues created by processing old notifications. |
Some Events defined by FHIR are assigned to one of these categories, but others are not able to be categorized in advance, and the category must be determined by the content, context, or use case.
--------------------------------- Suggested Added text --------------------------------------------------------------------
2.24.1.1.1 Example: Elevation from Notification to Consequence
When it is necessary to receive an acknowledgement from multiple parties for a message of notification it becomes a message of consequence: The sender will have to send multiple messages, even if they have the same endpoint.
Use case:
* Local protocol requires notification of all lab values
* Local protocol requires that critical values must be acknowledged by both the ordering and primary provider.
* Therefore a message of notification becomes a message of consequence.
* Two messages must be sent, each with a unique acknowledgement.
