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 21: Line 21:
 
=Resources=
 
=Resources=
 
{| border="1" cellpadding="2"
 
{| border="1" cellpadding="2"
!width="100"|Resource
+
!width="150"|Resource
!width="325"|Resource Page
+
!width="150"|Resource Proposal
 
!width="150"|Status
 
!width="150"|Status
 
!width="100"|Next Ballot
 
!width="100"|Next Ballot
 
|-
 
|-
| Device || [[Composite Order|Composite Order]] || align="center" | Development || align="center" | Sep 13
+
| [http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/fhir/device.htm Device] || [[http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Device_FHIR_Resource_Proposal]] || align="center" | Development || align="center" | Sep 13
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Substance || [[Lab Order Template|Laboratory Orders]] || align="center" | Ballot Reconciliation|| align="center" | MAY 13
 
| Substance || [[Lab Order Template|Laboratory Orders]] || align="center" | Ballot Reconciliation|| align="center" | MAY 13
Line 38: Line 38:
 
| DiagnosticReport || [http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/fhir/diagnosticreport.htm DiagnosticReport] || align="center" | Updates from Ballot Reconciliation || align="center" | SEP13
 
| DiagnosticReport || [http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/fhir/diagnosticreport.htm DiagnosticReport] || align="center" | Updates from Ballot Reconciliation || align="center" | SEP13
 
|}
 
|}
 
  
 
=Discussion - Phoenix Jan 2013 WGM=
 
=Discussion - Phoenix Jan 2013 WGM=

Revision as of 17:05, 4 May 2013

Introduction

This is the project page for the development of FHIR resources in the OO domain. Project #952

Scope

Resources under development by OO:

  • Device
  • Substance
  • Supply
  • Observation
  • DiagnosticReport
  • Specimen

Resources under development by Core Team:

  • Order
  • OrderResponse

Documents

Resources

Resource Resource Proposal Status Next Ballot
Device [[1]] Development Sep 13
Substance Laboratory Orders Ballot Reconciliation MAY 13
Supply Blood, Tissue, Organ v3 HOLD ON HOLD
Specimen Blood Donation v2 Published N/A
Observation Common Product Model DSTU R2  
DiagnosticReport DiagnosticReport Updates from Ballot Reconciliation SEP13

Discussion - Phoenix Jan 2013 WGM

Patrick reviewed the definitions for the FHIR Resource for LabReport. 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
      1. GG: this is not a naming question, but scoping/analysis problem. We need to discuss use cases
      2. PL: Agree completely!
      3. GG: Actually, I think the scope is correct in this regard. This resource allows you to 'report'... but you can also use it just to send atomic results.
  2. Business
    1. LabReport.Issued: don't understand the definition
      1. GG: revision date time - need to fix the name/definition
    2. LabReport.Specimen: Why specimen at the report level,. esp considering at the report level, multiple specimens are supported
      1. GG: because it seems silly to repeat the same specimen for multiple groups - and this is a common situation
    3. ResultGroup: what's the requirement
      1. GG: this allows a single structure to handle all the reports we could find - sections/categories in common reports, immunology (a series of observations per antibody), micro (groups for organisms), Sections in synoptic reports (CAP definitions)
    4. Does Promise as a resource meet the 80/20 rule or is a promise simply a special kind of result?
      1. GG: open question - but why are you asking? this resource is not a promise, nor a fulfillment - that would be something else that might point to this.
  3. Technical
    1. RequestDetail.receiverOrderId: No requirement
      1. GG: I got lazy. I should add something
    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
      1. GG: that's what "meaning" is for
    3. Result.name: ResultGroup.name: Element names are wonky (don't like 'name') where used in this spec.
      1. GG: so we talk about renaming. I'd use "code" now.
    4. An individual result should be able to reference a specimen, in my opinion
      1. GG: what's the use case? Creatinine Clearance I suppose? but this does complicate matters - is it worth it? I thought it was outside the 80/20
    5. Result.codedDx (or some such). Need interpretation per result (esp. for micro)
      1. GG: agree - need to add interpretation - or we could change comments to interpretation and make it coded - but would you use both?
    6. LabReport.status: No use case for registered
      1. GG: yes there is - common to be required to let clinicians know that a report is coming.
    7. LabReport.status: interim, different than preliminary
      1. GG: well, how is it different, and what difference does it make in practice?
    8. LabReport.status: No use case for withdrawn
      1. GG: ? how can you not have a use case - what do you do when you want to withdraw a result? This is widely used in Australia. Note that withdrawn = changed/updated, but with formal notification that this change means, withdrawn. This allows the receiving system to actually remove (in whatever way is appropriate) the contents
    9. LabReport.status: Does this follow 80/20 too? Depending, we should consider adding the newer codes added for v2 for result status
      1. GG: well, some of the codes are outside the scope of a resource. Which codes did you have in mind?