Difference between revisions of "FHIR for Orders"
| (19 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
=Scope= | =Scope= | ||
Resources under development by OO: | Resources under development by OO: | ||
| − | *Device | + | *[http://hl7-fhir.github.io/*BodySite.html BodySite] |
| − | * | + | *[http://hl7-fhir.github.io/*DataElement.html DataElement] |
| − | * | + | *[http://hl7-fhir.github.io/*Device.html Device] |
| − | *Observation | + | *[http://hl7-fhir.github.io/*DiagnosticOrder.html DiagnosticOrder ] |
| − | * | + | *[http://hl7-fhir.github.io/*DiagnosticReport.html *iagnosticReport] |
| − | *Specimen | + | *[http://hl7-fhir.github.io/*NutitionOrder.html NutitionOrder] |
| + | *[http://hl7-fhir.github.io/*Observation.html Observation] | ||
| + | *[http://hl7-fhir.github.io/*Order.html Order] | ||
| + | *[http://hl7-fhir.github.io/*OrderResponse.html OrderResponse] | ||
| + | *[http://hl7-fhir.github.io/*Specimen.html Specimen] | ||
| + | *[http://hl7-fhir.github.io/*Substance.html Substance] | ||
| + | *[http://hl7-fhir.github.io/*Supply.html Supply] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | = | + | =Next Steps= |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | * | |
| − | + | == Resolve Ballot comments == | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *pending see [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemBrowse&tracker_id=677 GFORGE] | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | == DSTU2 QA == | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 1) divide up the work - here is list of OO's resouces pick what you want and I will take whatever is left over: | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 1.Order - Elvino | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 2.OrderResponse - Elvino | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 3.DiagnosticOrder - Elvino | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 4.DiagnosticReport | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 5.NutritionOrder - Eric | |
| − | + | 6.Observation | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 7.Specimen | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 8.Supply | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 9.Device | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 10.Substance | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 11.BodySite - Eric | |
| + | |||
| + | 12. DataElement - Lloyd | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | 2) Review QA process here and see Lloyd's comments | ||
| + | |||
| + | "The specific quality assurance rules can be found here: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=DSTU_2_QA_guidelines | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Of these, I'd like the clinical folks to help out with the following: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Introduction: all three rules. Copy the existing introduction down to the end of the "Boundaries and Relationships" section for the resource into MS-Word, turn on track changes and edit it to meet the QA rules. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Examples: Look at the HTML view of the examples that already exist and see what they cover in terms of the contexts and data elements. If they need edits to make them clinically correct or if they can be edited to provide more coverage of contexts or data elements, then copy them to MS word and edit with track changes. Then define additional examples to cover additional contexts and ensure that all of the data elements are exercised at least once. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Value sets: Check for completeness. If you know terminology well enough to propose/design an external value set, that'd be good too. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Definitions: If you want to beef up a definition, feel free | ||
| + | |||
| + | Search criteria: Do the search criteria cover the 80% - any that seem like edge cases? Any common ones missing? | ||
| + | |||
| + | If you have questions/concerns, ask :>' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | 3) Any proposed changes outside of typos and broken links which can be fixed without review should be put in gFORGE as a comment for group block vote prior to review prior to committing. | ||
| + | |||
| + | - In order to sort QA comments thecomment summary should start with "QA-[Resource]" | ||
| + | |||
| + | 4) Send a list of QA changes out on OO list for each resource when complete to get group consensus and chance for review. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 5) Any individual items can be brought up on weekly call, but in interest of time try to get a resolution off line so can do a block vote. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 6) One last thing -Don't make a comment if no changes are needed | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
=Documents= | =Documents= | ||
*Review Notes (Jan 2013) on Lab FHIR Models: [[LabReportDiscussion]] | *Review Notes (Jan 2013) on Lab FHIR Models: [[LabReportDiscussion]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:09, 10 February 2015
Introduction
This is the project page for the development of FHIR resources in the OO domain. Project #952
Scope
Resources under development by OO:
- BodySite
- DataElement
- Device
- DiagnosticOrder
- *iagnosticReport
- NutitionOrder
- Observation
- Order
- OrderResponse
- Specimen
- Substance
- Supply
Next Steps
Resolve Ballot comments
- pending see GFORGE
DSTU2 QA
1) divide up the work - here is list of OO's resouces pick what you want and I will take whatever is left over:
1.Order - Elvino
2.OrderResponse - Elvino
3.DiagnosticOrder - Elvino
4.DiagnosticReport
5.NutritionOrder - Eric
6.Observation
7.Specimen
8.Supply
9.Device
10.Substance
11.BodySite - Eric
12. DataElement - Lloyd
2) Review QA process here and see Lloyd's comments
"The specific quality assurance rules can be found here: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=DSTU_2_QA_guidelines
Of these, I'd like the clinical folks to help out with the following:
Introduction: all three rules. Copy the existing introduction down to the end of the "Boundaries and Relationships" section for the resource into MS-Word, turn on track changes and edit it to meet the QA rules.
Examples: Look at the HTML view of the examples that already exist and see what they cover in terms of the contexts and data elements. If they need edits to make them clinically correct or if they can be edited to provide more coverage of contexts or data elements, then copy them to MS word and edit with track changes. Then define additional examples to cover additional contexts and ensure that all of the data elements are exercised at least once.
Value sets: Check for completeness. If you know terminology well enough to propose/design an external value set, that'd be good too.
Definitions: If you want to beef up a definition, feel free
Search criteria: Do the search criteria cover the 80% - any that seem like edge cases? Any common ones missing?
If you have questions/concerns, ask :>'
3) Any proposed changes outside of typos and broken links which can be fixed without review should be put in gFORGE as a comment for group block vote prior to review prior to committing.
- In order to sort QA comments thecomment summary should start with "QA-[Resource]"
4) Send a list of QA changes out on OO list for each resource when complete to get group consensus and chance for review.
5) Any individual items can be brought up on weekly call, but in interest of time try to get a resolution off line so can do a block vote.
6) One last thing -Don't make a comment if no changes are needed
Documents
- Review Notes (Jan 2013) on Lab FHIR Models: LabReportDiscussion
