This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "FHIR for Orders"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
#General
 
#General
##Resource Naming: Suggest LabReport isn't the correct name.  Not all regions 'bundle' their results in the form of a report (which, to OO, is a 'clinical document'
+
##Resource Naming: Suggest LabReport isn't the correct name.  Not all regions 'bundle' their results in the form of a report (which, to OO, is a 'clinical document').  Need to discuss the architecture used: namely, report is made up of groups, made up of results
 
#Business
 
#Business
 
## LabReport.Issued: don't understand the definition
 
## LabReport.Issued: don't understand the definition

Revision as of 21:01, 9 September 2012

Introduction

This page is for comments (we need a PSS to do more) as OO reviews the currently designed FHIR artifacts for Laboratory.

Scope

The scope of this effort is only for Lab Orders/Results/Reports at this time.

Documents

FHIR Models: LabReport

Discussion

Patrick reviewed the definitions for the FHIR Resource for LabReport. My comments are as follows:

  1. General
    1. Resource Naming: Suggest LabReport isn't the correct name. Not all regions 'bundle' their results in the form of a report (which, to OO, is a 'clinical document'). Need to discuss the architecture used: namely, report is made up of groups, made up of results
  2. Business
    1. LabReport.Issued: don't understand the definition
    2. LabReport.Specimen: Why specimen at the report level,. esp considering at the report level, multiple specimens are supported
    3. ResultGroup: what's the requirement
    4. Does Promise as a resource meet the 80/20 rule or is a promise simply a special kind of result?
  3. Technical
    1. RequestDetail.receiverOrderId: No requirement
    2. ReferenceRange: missing another element. Can say Normal range and give the numbers. but can't say normal range for a male over 50 yo
    3. Result.name: ResultGroup.name: Element names are wonky (don't like 'name') where used in this spec.
    4. An individual result should be able to reference a specimen, in my opinion
    5. Result.codedDx (or some such). Need interpretation per result (esp. for micro)
    6. LabReport.status: No use case for registered
    7. LabReport.status: interim, different than preliminary
    8. LabReport.status: No use case for withdrawn
    9. LabReport.status: Does this follow 80/20 too? Depending, we should consider adding the newer codes added for v2 for result status