Difference between revisions of "Minutes - Referral WG 2022-01-11"

From Health Level 7 Belgium Wiki
(Created page with "===== Attendees ===== * Dr Alain Derom * Frederik De Kegel * Hans De Keersmaecker * Jean-Michel Polfiet * Jos Bellen * José Costa Teixeira * Karlien Erauw * Kristof Ja...")
 
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
* Dr Alain Derom   
 
* Dr Alain Derom   
 
* Frederik De Kegel
 
* Frederik De Kegel
 +
* Frederik Lenaerts
 
* Hans De Keersmaecker  
 
* Hans De Keersmaecker  
 
* Jean-Michel Polfiet  
 
* Jean-Michel Polfiet  
Line 10: Line 11:
 
* Lotte Adriaensen
 
* Lotte Adriaensen
 
* Olivier Lothaire
 
* Olivier Lothaire
 +
* Philippe Cauchie
 
* Richard Francken
 
* Richard Francken
 
* Theo Schumacher  
 
* Theo Schumacher  
 
* Thibault Mahieu  
 
* Thibault Mahieu  
 
* Tom Tollenaere  
 
* Tom Tollenaere  
 +
* Toon Schiemsky
 
* Werner De Mulder
 
* Werner De Mulder
  
Line 22: Line 25:
 
* Filip Migom
 
* Filip Migom
 
* Frédéric Istace  
 
* Frédéric Istace  
−
* Frederik Lenaerts
 
 
* Joost Van Averbeke  
 
* Joost Van Averbeke  
 
* Jos Bellen  
 
* Jos Bellen  
Line 30: Line 32:
 
* Paul Neyens
 
* Paul Neyens
 
* Peter Laridon  
 
* Peter Laridon  
−
* Philippe Cauchie
 
 
* Robert Nicolas
 
* Robert Nicolas
 
* Tom Fiers  
 
* Tom Fiers  
−
* Toon Schiemsky
 
 
* Richard Francken  
 
* Richard Francken  
 
* Stefan Waegemans  
 
* Stefan Waegemans  
Line 45: Line 45:
 
* Issue 74: how to deal with attachements, can be also media   
 
* Issue 74: how to deal with attachements, can be also media   
 
::* do we have to limit the types of media - GP softs will have to develop
 
::* do we have to limit the types of media - GP softs will have to develop
 +
::* the FHIR message will go through the eHealthBox but could be big if they have annexes which will cause issues at the eHealth box
 +
::* is it ok to send the lab result without the embedded protocol
 +
::* all attachments are optional, nothing to be profiled
 +
* Update on issue 64 and 65
 +
::* no proposal from HL7 int'l experts
 +
::* this is critical for the LIS
 +
::* José will look into it this week for discussion in the meeting of next week
  
−
 
−
 
−
CHU Charleroi did a succesfull import of a FHIR message, decoding will start
 
−
* Visualisation tool is public and [https://vizapp.icure.dev/ URL is available:] drag and drop of FHIR file is possible - uncheck validation of file button as there is a bug
 
−
* New issue from last week #issue 59: Create NamingSystem for BIS numbers
 
−
::* patient identification: checked with eHealth platform
 
−
::* art 8 from eHealth platform law and mapped with the BCSS law: all info passing the eHealth platform must use the NISS info from patient, the NISS is identifier at the nat'l security, can be RN number if this exists ; if not existing in RN then BIS number is created. [https://www.ehealth.fgov.be/nl/egezondheid/beroepsbeoefenaars-in-de-gezondheidszorg/ehealthcreabis See more here]
 
−
::* no need to create a new Naming System as NISS can be RN or BIS number
 
−
::* BIS can be created by Fedasil or nat'l scty or GP
 
−
::* will there be FHIR messages without a NIS number ? There are now data in labs without NIS number. If there is no NIS then data are not shared
 
−
::::* patient data are sent not by eHealth infrastructure if there is not a NIS number
 
−
::::* Can we send a FHIR message without NISS number ? It is possible if sent the eHealthBox to the GP. Lab will use own identification from his system.
 
−
::* issue 59 can be closed as not necessary: the foreseen namingsystem https://www.ehealth.fgov.be/standards/fhir/NamingSystem/ssin can be used as well
 
−
 
−
* New issue : how to deal with comments - new issue encountered, not in github yet
 
−
::* protocol 49: series of tests that are not accredited, some of them having comments. the only way to encode this is
 
−
::* text "analyse gedekt door accreditatie" comes with every analysis
 
−
::* some tests have biological relevance, some have not, they are mixed. Visualisation tool only shows 1st comment currently.
 
−
::* does it make sense to mix info like this ?
 
−
::* Belac requires to put info somewhere in a readable way. Currently there is no other way to put the comments but report becomes unreadable
 
−
::* make distinction b/w technically/clinically relevant & administrative/non-clinical comment
 
−
::::* if we make extension it is at observation level not at observation interpretation level - seems that we need an extension, José will check with int'l FHIR lab group and will come up with a solution
 
−
::* issue 64 is newly created in github
 
−
 
−
* Additional new issue with comments: comments having referenced values/referenced range/interval and alpha numeric values
 
−
::* see protocol 52
 
−
::* visualisation tool does not show these comments yet
 
−
::* comment that goes with referenced range f.e. normal values for diabetics/normal values for non-diabetics
 
−
::::* this comment could be added to observation level referring to referenced range
 
−
::* issue 65 is newly created in github
 
−
::* see complex [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JjxowJW_5TTw0RF3QJdoKtSvS_mOEuIm/view?usp=sharing example here]
 
−
::* clinical biologists feel that several tests are necessary to see how it will look like
 
−
::* José to come up with a proposal to put this info, we might need an extension
 
−
::* check with Netherlands: https://zibs.nl/wiki/LaboratoryTestResult-v5.0(2021EN)
 
−
 
−
* Issue 21: copy physicians
 
−
::* reports not only indicate physician who ordered the lab tests, but may list other physicians in cc of lab results. We cannot find who to encode those in the FHIR message (i.e. we do not know where to put those). Do we not indicate this? Or if we do, where and how?
 
−
::* POC group proposes to put comment on service request/order level (plain text: copy result to GP...)
 
−
::* order is not digitised yet so is more for the future, there is no BeServiceRequest yet, note field at FHIR R4 service request profile
 
−
 
−
* Issue 24: results in different units
 
−
::* it is a non-issue: labs will results in the units in which they have pinned the result
 
−
::* it can be closed
 
−
::* receiver can receive different loinc codes
 
−
 
−
* Progress in POC is good, no major issues are coming
 
 
'''Next Meeting:''' on Tuesday Jan 18 4PM
 
'''Next Meeting:''' on Tuesday Jan 18 4PM

Latest revision as of 17:45, 11 January 2022

Attendees
  • Dr Alain Derom
  • Frederik De Kegel
  • Frederik Lenaerts
  • Hans De Keersmaecker
  • Jean-Michel Polfiet
  • Jos Bellen
  • José Costa Teixeira
  • Karlien Erauw
  • Kristof Jaubin
  • Lotte Adriaensen
  • Olivier Lothaire
  • Philippe Cauchie
  • Richard Francken
  • Theo Schumacher
  • Thibault Mahieu
  • Tom Tollenaere
  • Toon Schiemsky
  • Werner De Mulder
Excused/Not present
  • Alexis Van Zeveren
  • Bart Decuypere
  • Benny Verhamme
  • Filip Migom
  • Frédéric Istace
  • Joost Van Averbeke
  • Jos Bellen
  • Mieke Buckinx
  • Nick Hermans
  • Nico Vannieuwenhuyze
  • Paul Neyens
  • Peter Laridon
  • Robert Nicolas
  • Tom Fiers
  • Richard Francken
  • Stefan Waegemans


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 74: how to deal with attachements, can be also media
  • do we have to limit the types of media - GP softs will have to develop
  • the FHIR message will go through the eHealthBox but could be big if they have annexes which will cause issues at the eHealth box
  • is it ok to send the lab result without the embedded protocol
  • all attachments are optional, nothing to be profiled
  • Update on issue 64 and 65
  • no proposal from HL7 int'l experts
  • this is critical for the LIS
  • José will look into it this week for discussion in the meeting of next week

Next Meeting: on Tuesday Jan 18 4PM

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7belgium.org/index.php?title=Minutes_-_Referral_WG_2022-01-11&oldid=1373"