Difference between revisions of "Minutes - Referral WG 2023-02-10"

From Health Level 7 Belgium Wiki
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
* Katrien Dickx
 
* Katrien Dickx
 
* Karlien Erauw  
 
* Karlien Erauw  
* Maarten Cobbaert (partially)
+
* Maarten Cobbaert
 
* Marleen Van Eygen
 
* Marleen Van Eygen
 
* Maxime Daive
 
* Maxime Daive
Line 34: Line 34:
  
 
=== Agenda ===
 
=== Agenda ===
* Resolution of issues  
+
* Resolution of issues
* working on use cases
 
  
 
=== Meeting Minutes ===
 
=== Meeting Minutes ===
Line 51: Line 50:
 
::* annex 81 will be the next use case that will be tackled  
 
::* annex 81 will be the next use case that will be tackled  
  
* referral task & performer taksk: standard FHIR quering sytem will be used
+
* referral task & performer tasks: standard FHIR quering sytem will be used
 
::* this closes [https://github.com/hl7-be/referral/issues/201 issue #199]
 
::* this closes [https://github.com/hl7-be/referral/issues/201 issue #199]
 
::* [https://github.com/hl7-be/referral/issues/197 Issue 197]: there will be additional Snomed CT codes so therefore this issue can not yet be closed  
 
::* [https://github.com/hl7-be/referral/issues/197 Issue 197]: there will be additional Snomed CT codes so therefore this issue can not yet be closed  
Line 81: Line 80:
 
::* [https://github.com/hl7-be/referral/issues/54 Issue 54]: there is a document on operations  
 
::* [https://github.com/hl7-be/referral/issues/54 Issue 54]: there is a document on operations  
 
::::* the information will have to be added to the IG, including an API description (using the FHIR standard operations + some specific operations)
 
::::* the information will have to be added to the IG, including an API description (using the FHIR standard operations + some specific operations)
::::* in which form do the vendors like to have the API description (in IG or in a cookbook)
+
::::* in which form do the vendors like to have the API description (in IG or in a cookbook) ? feedback by next week
 
::::* see: https://build.fhir.org/ig/hl7-be/referral/branches/issue-91/OperationDefinition-be-op-cancel  
 
::::* see: https://build.fhir.org/ig/hl7-be/referral/branches/issue-91/OperationDefinition-be-op-cancel  
  
 
=== Agenda next meeting ===
 
=== Agenda next meeting ===
* presentation of valueset by RIZIV (Anne)
+
* presentation of valuesets by RIZIV (Anne)
 
* continuation of resolution of issues
 
* continuation of resolution of issues
 +
* input vendors on issue 54
  
 
'''Next meeting: next week Friday 17 Feb at 9AM'''
 
'''Next meeting: next week Friday 17 Feb at 9AM'''

Latest revision as of 08:38, 17 February 2023

Attendees

  • Anne Nerenhausen
  • Anthony Maton
  • Bart Decuypere
  • Bart Reekmans
  • Ben Goosse
  • Hans De Keersmaeker
  • Jacques Yakoub
  • Jean-Michel Polfliet
  • Julien Beard
  • Katrien Dickx
  • Karlien Erauw
  • Maarten Cobbaert
  • Marleen Van Eygen
  • Maxime Daive
  • Philippe Baise
  • Robin Merckx

Excused

  • Benjamien Schmitt
  • Christophe Behaegel
  • Cyprien Janssens
  • Dorsan de Fabricheckers
  • Geert Vandenhole
  • Jean-Francois Coquelet
  • José Costa Teixeira
  • Katleen Smedts
  • Laurent Lamouline
  • Lionel Cremer
  • Pablo Christiaens
  • Pieter Devolder
  • Richard Francken

Agenda

  • Resolution of issues

Meeting Minutes

  • the group agrees that this proposal is moved to the master branch
  • so issue 91 can be closed
  • any comments can still be raised in the upcoming weeks
  • will the controls by mutuatity or RIZIV be done directly on the UHMEP platform : this is outside the UHMEP platform
  • the only thing that changes is the prescription ID
  • Work on use case :
  • work on one use case (medication line) has been done and is present in the IG (implementation guide)
  • recently the use case on the blood case has been added, is also present in the IG
  • annex 81 will be the next use case that will be tackled
  • referral task & performer tasks: standard FHIR quering sytem will be used
  • this closes issue #199
  • Issue 197: there will be additional Snomed CT codes so therefore this issue can not yet be closed
  • Issue 194: work is ongoing on use cases
  • Issue 193: there will be an additional serviceRequest that will refer to another medication line, so issue can be closed
  • Issue 191: awaiting extra input, remains open, no input ready yet
  • Issue 190: is resolved through the proposed architecture
  • Issue 177: timing datatype, is still being looked into
  • is start time & duration sufficient : RIZIV confirms that this is fine, there is often only a start date without time, so start time is optional
  • Issue 187: legislation requests that the medication is mentioned again on the prescription (for patient security reasons), therefore the issue remains open. There are 3 possible options that need to be presented to the business first
  • Issue 176: if there is no litoral reference, there is a strong recommendation to have a logical reference (advice from HL7 BE FHIR WG infrastructure & architecture)
  • UHMEP will only use logical references (for Patient, Practioner)
  • Issue 186: UCUM units for medication administration
  • nu update yet
  • this has to be taken up by the WG FHIR Medication
  • a follow-up meeting will happen as from next week
  • UHMEP will provide the UUID and the client will receive the UUID when looking up the prescription (through location header)
  • it is up to the client whether they have accidentally created a double prescription (if the call is made twice)
  • Issue 126: a use case will be created
  • Issue 77: this is part of the valueset
  • Issue 73: this is part of the document that will be released later on today (COBHRA sources - if incomplete RIZIV will check and o the necessary)
  • Issue 70: input will be received later on today
  • Issue 54: there is a document on operations

Agenda next meeting

  • presentation of valuesets by RIZIV (Anne)
  • continuation of resolution of issues
  • input vendors on issue 54

Next meeting: next week Friday 17 Feb at 9AM