Difference between revisions of "Minutes - Referral WG 2022-03-22"

From Health Level 7 Belgium Wiki
Line 66: Line 66:
 
::::* for some labs it would require a big change in the microbiology reporting
 
::::* for some labs it would require a big change in the microbiology reporting
 
::::* it is not an official viewpoint of the vendors  
 
::::* it is not an official viewpoint of the vendors  
::::* is a blob an option until the lab is ready for structured microbiology ? the labs will need the time for this change
+
::::* blob is a an option until the lab is ready for structured microbiology (the labs will need a lot of time for this change)
 +
::::* receiver will be able to parse it but not be able to save it in a unstructured way ; might not be a big problem
 
::* structured microbiology reporting is possible and the pilot has a proposal/way of working
 
::* structured microbiology reporting is possible and the pilot has a proposal/way of working
 
::* does Belgium will only do this in an unstructured way ? no, structured microbiology reporting should be looked into as this is valuable
 
::* does Belgium will only do this in an unstructured way ? no, structured microbiology reporting should be looked into as this is valuable
 
::::* how many Snomed CT codes are needed ? it seems that there are +/- 200
 
::::* how many Snomed CT codes are needed ? it seems that there are +/- 200
 
::* there will have to be in the implementation guide  
 
::* there will have to be in the implementation guide  
 
+
::* WG decision: if the string value for the result field contains a new line character the content should be rendered in a non-proportional font
 
 
TBC
 
 
 
* Issue 105 - microbiology reporting :
 
::* put observation under report results, so you can put antibiotic results that are also put as an observation
 
::* add an intermediate level and to be tested (MIPS at UZ Gent & CHU Charleroi)
 
 
 
* Questions that are open since a while - see issue 105
 
::* Q1:
 
::* Q2: what do other countries do about microbiology
 
::* Q3: is snomed CT code mandatory for germs code
 
* Q4: integration of RIS or IRS : would be an integration of an additional system...
 
::* all narrative answers must be supported, must be accepted - digital report should have the same content as paper reports
 
::::* there is a codesystem for the antibiotic values
 
::::::* interpretation is a codeable concept but there is also a value - put in the value
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
'''Agenda for next meeting''':
 
'''Agenda for next meeting''':

Revision as of 15:49, 22 March 2022

Attendees

  • Dr Alain Derom
  • Bart Decuypere
  • Frederik De Kegel
  • Frederik Lenaerts
  • Hans De Keersmaecker
  • Jean-Michel Polfiet
  • Jos Bellen
  • Karlien Erauw
  • Kristof Jaubin
  • Lotte Adriaensen
  • Nico Vannieuwenhuyze (arrived late)
  • Olivier Lothaire
  • Peter Laridon
  • Philippe Cauchie
  • Stefan Waegemans
  • Sven Bisaro
  • Thibault Mahieu
  • Tom Tollenaere

Excused/Not present

  • Alexis Van Zeveren
  • Bart Havermans
  • Benny Verhamme
  • Filip Migom
  • Frédéric Istace
  • Hendrik De Moor
  • Joost Van Averbeke
  • José Costa Teixeira
  • Mieke Buckinx
  • Nick Hermans
  • Paul Neyens
  • Richard Francken
  • Robert Nicolas
  • Roland Vueghs
  • Theo Schumacher
  • Tom Fiers
  • Toon Schiemsky
  • Veerle Claessens
  • Werner De Mulder
  • Yulia Shornikova

Agenda

  • Discuss and resolve open issues

Minutes

Resolution of open issues: https://github.com/hl7-be/hl7-be-fhir-laboratory-report/projects/1

  • Issue 98 - accreditation comment
  • what is really required for the Belac accreditation ?
  • do we need a general accr comment for the entire report
  • if we keep the comment on the result level
  • Belac requires your accr nbr
  • Belac requires info at test level
  • Belac requires to put more info in the "footer" ; behind every test you can put more details
  • experiences abroad: see question in FHIR chat - CLIA in the US, see here


  • Issue 105 - DNA info :
  • add it to note to BeLaboratroyObservation level
  • validate tomorrow with UZ Gent on 23/3
  • Issue 105 - microbiology reporting :
  • it is in the scope of the pilot
  • structured microbiology lab reporting might be very difficult for some lab/LIS vendors
  • for some labs it would require a big change in the microbiology reporting
  • it is not an official viewpoint of the vendors
  • blob is a an option until the lab is ready for structured microbiology (the labs will need a lot of time for this change)
  • receiver will be able to parse it but not be able to save it in a unstructured way ; might not be a big problem
  • structured microbiology reporting is possible and the pilot has a proposal/way of working
  • does Belgium will only do this in an unstructured way ? no, structured microbiology reporting should be looked into as this is valuable
  • how many Snomed CT codes are needed ? it seems that there are +/- 200
  • there will have to be in the implementation guide
  • WG decision: if the string value for the result field contains a new line character the content should be rendered in a non-proportional font

Agenda for next meeting:

  • come to a consensus on the open issues - please have a look at the proposed solution for the issues in status "To be validated by WG"

Next Meeting - next week as there are still some open issues: on Tuesday March 29 - at 4PM