Difference between revisions of "VerificationResult FHIR Resource Proposal"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{subst::Template:FHIR Resource Proposal}}")
 
Line 9: Line 9:
 
[[Category:Pending FHIR Resource Proposal]]
 
[[Category:Pending FHIR Resource Proposal]]
  
 
+
=VerificationResult=
<!-- For additional guidance on considerations for resource creation, refer to [[FHIR Resource Considerations]] -->
 
 
 
 
 
=PutProposedResourceNameHere=
 
 
 
<!-- Resource names should meet the following characteristics:
 
* Lower camel case
 
* U.S. English
 
* Domain-friendly
 
* Short
 
* Clear
 
* Unique
 
* Avoid non-universal abbreviations (e.g. URL would be ok)
 
* Be expressed as a noun
 
* Be consistent with other similar resources
 
-->
 
  
 
==Owning work group name==
 
==Owning work group name==
 
+
[[Patient Administration]]
<!-- The name of the committee that is proposed to have responsibility for developing and maintaining the resources. -->
 
[[YourWorkGroupName]]
 
  
 
==Committee Approval Date:==
 
==Committee Approval Date:==
Line 43: Line 25:
  
 
==FHIR Resource Development Project Insight ID==
 
==FHIR Resource Development Project Insight ID==
 +
1345
 +
 +
==Scope of coverage==
 +
The VerificationResult resource records the details and results of a resource that needs to be, or has been verified by multiple parties.
 +
It does not represent the workflows or tasks related, but does cover the who did what when, why, and when it needs to be done again.
  
<!-- Please specify the id of your work group’s PSS for doing FHIR work.  (If submitted but not yet approved, just write “pending”.) The link to the PSS template can be found here: http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6832/9398/HL7FHIR_DSTUballotPSS-20120529.doc -->
+
This is in contrast to the AuditEvent which could record that a resource was received from someone, and the Provenance that records who it came from.
  
==Scope of coverage==
+
It was considered to be implemented as a profile on Provenance, however this seems to be different in scope in that its includes details of the verification.
  
 
<!-- Define the full scope of coverage for the resource.  The scope must be clearly delineated such that it does not overlap with any other existing or expected resource.  The scope will be used to govern "what is the set of potential applications to consider when evaluating what elements are 'core' – i.e. in the 80%"
 
<!-- Define the full scope of coverage for the resource.  The scope must be clearly delineated such that it does not overlap with any other existing or expected resource.  The scope will be used to govern "what is the set of potential applications to consider when evaluating what elements are 'core' – i.e. in the 80%"
Line 60: Line 47:
  
 
==RIM scope==
 
==RIM scope==
 +
unknown
  
<!-- Identify the formal RIM mapping for the root concept of the resource.  The expectation is that the RIM mapping will be sufficiently precise so as to not overlap with any other resource definition. -->
+
==Resource appropriateness==
 +
When receiving content from a 3rd party system (such as a directory) it is important to be able to determine the quality of that data. This resource provides a receiver of the content the knowledge of where the data came from (especially where content was aggregated from multiple sources)
  
==Resource appropriateness==
+
This is to be stored external to the resource, instead of within it, so that where not required, the additional content of the verification (which could be quite extensive) does not need to be loaded.
  
 
<!-- Does the resource meet the following characteristics?
 
<!-- Does the resource meet the following characteristics?
Line 79: Line 68:
  
 
==Expected implementations==
 
==Expected implementations==
 +
The ONC has indicated that they desire to create a service that uses this capability where they will be distributing aggregated healthcare directory data from a central service to Organizations for local usage (based on a specific data usage agreement)
  
 
<!--Key resources are justified by CCDA, for resources not deemed "key", what interest is there by implementers in using this particular resource. Provide named implementations if possible - ideally provide multiple independent implementations. -->
 
<!--Key resources are justified by CCDA, for resources not deemed "key", what interest is there by implementers in using this particular resource. Provide named implementations if possible - ideally provide multiple independent implementations. -->
Line 89: Line 79:
  
 
==Example Scenarios==
 
==Example Scenarios==
 
+
* Centralized Healthcare Directory service
<!-- Provide a listing of the types of scenarios to be represented in the examples produced for this resource.  They should demonstrate the full scope of the resource and allow exercising of the resources capabilities (full element coverage, inclusion & omission of optional elements, repeating and singleton repeating elements, etc.) -->
+
* Distributed/Federated Provider Directory service
 +
* Aggregated Directory Service
  
 
==Resource Relationships==
 
==Resource Relationships==
 +
Reference(any) - Our initial requirements are needed against:
 +
* Organization
 +
* OrganizationRole (OrganizationAffiliation)
 +
* Location
 +
* Practitioner
 +
* PractitionerRole
 +
* HealthcareService
  
<!-- What are the resources do you expect will reference this resource and in what context?
+
We do not currently expect other resources to specifically reference VerificationResult
 
 
What resources do you expect this resource reference and in what context?
 
 
 
Note: These may be existing resources or "expected" resource
 
 
 
Reference to resources is really only relevant at the "same or higher level" (Bo – fix this wording)
 
-->
 
  
 
==Timelines==
 
==Timelines==
 
+
May Ballot 2018 - draft is in the build that went to the Jan 2018 Comment ballot
<!-- Indicate the target date for having the resource complete from a committee perspective and ready for vetting and voting -->
 
  
 
==gForge Users==
 
==gForge Users==
 
+
brian_pos
<!-- Identify the userids who will require commit access to gForge to maintain the resource.  (Ensure all users have registered for gForge.) -->
+
Cooper Thompson
 +
Andrew Torres
  
 
==When Resource Proposal Is Complete==
 
==When Resource Proposal Is Complete==

Revision as of 00:54, 2 February 2018

VerificationResult

Owning work group name

Patient Administration

Committee Approval Date:

Please enter the date that the committee approved this Resource proposal

Contributing or Reviewing Work Groups

  • Work Group Name
  • or link
  • or "None"

FHIR Resource Development Project Insight ID

1345

Scope of coverage

The VerificationResult resource records the details and results of a resource that needs to be, or has been verified by multiple parties. It does not represent the workflows or tasks related, but does cover the who did what when, why, and when it needs to be done again.

This is in contrast to the AuditEvent which could record that a resource was received from someone, and the Provenance that records who it came from.

It was considered to be implemented as a profile on Provenance, however this seems to be different in scope in that its includes details of the verification.


RIM scope

unknown

Resource appropriateness

When receiving content from a 3rd party system (such as a directory) it is important to be able to determine the quality of that data. This resource provides a receiver of the content the knowledge of where the data came from (especially where content was aggregated from multiple sources)

This is to be stored external to the resource, instead of within it, so that where not required, the additional content of the verification (which could be quite extensive) does not need to be loaded.


Expected implementations

The ONC has indicated that they desire to create a service that uses this capability where they will be distributing aggregated healthcare directory data from a central service to Organizations for local usage (based on a specific data usage agreement)


Content sources

Example Scenarios

  • Centralized Healthcare Directory service
  • Distributed/Federated Provider Directory service
  • Aggregated Directory Service

Resource Relationships

Reference(any) - Our initial requirements are needed against:

  • Organization
  • OrganizationRole (OrganizationAffiliation)
  • Location
  • Practitioner
  • PractitionerRole
  • HealthcareService

We do not currently expect other resources to specifically reference VerificationResult

Timelines

May Ballot 2018 - draft is in the build that went to the Jan 2018 Comment ballot

gForge Users

brian_pos Cooper Thompson Andrew Torres

When Resource Proposal Is Complete

When you have completed your proposal, please send an email to FMGcontact@HL7.org

FMG Notes