Difference between revisions of "Minutes - Referral WG 2021-12-07"
From Health Level 7 Belgium Wiki
KarlienErauw (talk | contribs) |
KarlienErauw (talk | contribs) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
===== Attendees ===== | ===== Attendees ===== | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* Dr Alain Derom | * Dr Alain Derom | ||
* Bart Decuypere | * Bart Decuypere | ||
| − | * | + | * Frederik De Kegel |
| − | |||
* Frederik Lenaerts | * Frederik Lenaerts | ||
* Hans De Keersmaecker | * Hans De Keersmaecker | ||
* Jean-Michel Polfiet | * Jean-Michel Polfiet | ||
| − | |||
* Jos Bellen | * Jos Bellen | ||
* José Costa Teixeira | * José Costa Teixeira | ||
* Karlien Erauw | * Karlien Erauw | ||
| − | * Kristof Jaubin | + | * Kristof Jaubin |
| − | + | * Peter Laridon (left early) | |
| − | + | * Robert Nicolas | |
| − | * Peter Laridon | + | * Theo Schumacher |
| − | * Robert Nicolas | ||
* Thibault Mahieu | * Thibault Mahieu | ||
| + | * Tom Fiers | ||
* Tom Tollenaere | * Tom Tollenaere | ||
* Stefan Waegemans | * Stefan Waegemans | ||
* Toon Schiemsky | * Toon Schiemsky | ||
| + | * Werner De Mulder | ||
===== Excused/Not present ===== | ===== Excused/Not present ===== | ||
| − | + | * Alexis Van Zeveren | |
| − | * | + | * Benny Verhamme |
| + | * Frédéric Istace | ||
| + | * Joost Van Averbeke | ||
* Mieke Buckinx | * Mieke Buckinx | ||
| − | * | + | * Nico Vannieuwenhuyze |
| + | * Nick Hermans | ||
* Paul Neyens | * Paul Neyens | ||
* Richard Francken | * Richard Francken | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===== Agenda ===== | ===== Agenda ===== | ||
| − | * Rework on issues resulted from the pilot phase | + | * Rework on issues resulted from the pilot phase, issues #48 and #50 having priority |
===== Minutes ===== | ===== Minutes ===== | ||
| − | + | * Up-to-date list of issues can be consulted [https://github.com/hl7-be/hl7-be-fhir-laboratory-report/issues here] | |
| − | * Up-to-date list of issues can | + | * Issue 48 & 50 have priority: no structure is available, does extension need to be created ? Both are linked. |
| − | * Issue | + | * Issue 48 "At result level: accredited and / or performed by external laboratory: can we have extensions for both?" |
| − | + | * Issue 50 "At Organization-level, could there be a note-field (or other) to indicate the BELAC accreditation of the laboratory?": there is no note/comment field at organisation level. Do we need this ? A lab is allowed to do it, it is not mandatory. Having a possibility for a note at test level and note on report level, gives every lab a solution. Comment field at diagnostic report level makes sense. In practice it is put on the footer of the report by labs. There is no comment field now at diagnostic report level. here is no comment field now at bundle level. Range of identifiers can be added (RIZIV number), unlimited number can be added, adding here one for lab accreditation can be added here. Do we need to add NamingSystem, f.e. https://economie.fgov.be/belac, but what if a lab has a Dutch accreditation ? Issue moves to resolved | |
| − | :: | + | * Issue 50: it should be noted if test is under accreditation or not - it is not mandatory - if you are accreditated you have to mention if the test is not done under accreditation |
| − | + | * Issue 50: "At result level: accredited and/or performed by external laboratory: can we have extensions for both?" : proposal to put it unstructured in a note at BeObservationLaboratory level - we could create 2 boolean extension fields will be created, not mandatory, one for accredited result, one to indicate an external result but this would only serve Belac | |
| − | + | * Issue 51: Common LOINC codes can appear twice/multiple times in the same DiagnosticReport (all Specimen Processing comments). It can also happen upon a trombosite test using different agents - same LOINC code with different agents or with timestamps. So it is not an issue and can be closed. | |
| − | + | * Priority of other issues will be determined in the pilot phase meeting on Wednesday, following on this, issue resolutions will be presented next week | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | * Issue | ||
| − | : | ||
| − | |||
| − | * Issue | ||
| − | : | ||
| − | |||
| − | * Issue | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
'''Next Meeting:''' on Tuesday Dec 14 4PM | '''Next Meeting:''' on Tuesday Dec 14 4PM | ||
Latest revision as of 15:04, 14 December 2021
Attendees
- Dr Alain Derom
- Bart Decuypere
- Frederik De Kegel
- Frederik Lenaerts
- Hans De Keersmaecker
- Jean-Michel Polfiet
- Jos Bellen
- José Costa Teixeira
- Karlien Erauw
- Kristof Jaubin
- Peter Laridon (left early)
- Robert Nicolas
- Theo Schumacher
- Thibault Mahieu
- Tom Fiers
- Tom Tollenaere
- Stefan Waegemans
- Toon Schiemsky
- Werner De Mulder
Excused/Not present
- Alexis Van Zeveren
- Benny Verhamme
- Frédéric Istace
- Joost Van Averbeke
- Mieke Buckinx
- Nico Vannieuwenhuyze
- Nick Hermans
- Paul Neyens
- Richard Francken
Agenda
- Rework on issues resulted from the pilot phase, issues #48 and #50 having priority
Minutes
- Up-to-date list of issues can be consulted here
- Issue 48 & 50 have priority: no structure is available, does extension need to be created ? Both are linked.
- Issue 48 "At result level: accredited and / or performed by external laboratory: can we have extensions for both?"
- Issue 50 "At Organization-level, could there be a note-field (or other) to indicate the BELAC accreditation of the laboratory?": there is no note/comment field at organisation level. Do we need this ? A lab is allowed to do it, it is not mandatory. Having a possibility for a note at test level and note on report level, gives every lab a solution. Comment field at diagnostic report level makes sense. In practice it is put on the footer of the report by labs. There is no comment field now at diagnostic report level. here is no comment field now at bundle level. Range of identifiers can be added (RIZIV number), unlimited number can be added, adding here one for lab accreditation can be added here. Do we need to add NamingSystem, f.e. https://economie.fgov.be/belac, but what if a lab has a Dutch accreditation ? Issue moves to resolved
- Issue 50: it should be noted if test is under accreditation or not - it is not mandatory - if you are accreditated you have to mention if the test is not done under accreditation
- Issue 50: "At result level: accredited and/or performed by external laboratory: can we have extensions for both?" : proposal to put it unstructured in a note at BeObservationLaboratory level - we could create 2 boolean extension fields will be created, not mandatory, one for accredited result, one to indicate an external result but this would only serve Belac
- Issue 51: Common LOINC codes can appear twice/multiple times in the same DiagnosticReport (all Specimen Processing comments). It can also happen upon a trombosite test using different agents - same LOINC code with different agents or with timestamps. So it is not an issue and can be closed.
- Priority of other issues will be determined in the pilot phase meeting on Wednesday, following on this, issue resolutions will be presented next week
Next Meeting: on Tuesday Dec 14 4PM
