Difference between revisions of "Minutes - Referral WG 2021-02-18"
From Health Level 7 Belgium Wiki
RobinBosman (talk | contribs) |
RobinBosman (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
* How far do we go with the level of detail to provide? | * How far do we go with the level of detail to provide? | ||
::* It is felt we shall have possibilities in the technical profile to provide for very detailed information when it is defined what the details entail. e.g. a very detailed valueset of codes is a big aid for semantic interoperability but the absence should not block us from working already towards publication of a technical profile. | ::* It is felt we shall have possibilities in the technical profile to provide for very detailed information when it is defined what the details entail. e.g. a very detailed valueset of codes is a big aid for semantic interoperability but the absence should not block us from working already towards publication of a technical profile. | ||
| + | ::::* The GP input level is indeed confirmed to be on the detail level as in the examples presented by Karen in a previous WG. However, if a GP (or of course any other prescriber) has information on a more detailed level, the standards should provide for possibilities to include them. A typical example would be detailed information about a pacemaker as the presence of a pacemaker is very relevant. If the prescriber has detailed information on that pacemaker, the standard should provide to include it. | ||
| + | ::::* The model should provide to include questionnaire responses. Still to be decided when and if we will be able to provide a standard questionnaire. | ||
| + | * The datamodel is reviewed | ||
| + | ::* | ||
::* .... | ::* .... | ||
| Line 37: | Line 41: | ||
::::* ... | ::::* ... | ||
| − | * Apparently, Recip-e reached out to some radiology experts concerning a possible future infrastructure. That might introduce | + | * Apparently, Recip-e reached out to some radiology experts concerning a possible future infrastructure. That might introduce some confusions when we communicate about this WG. To follow up with any contact with radiologists and/or the federation of radiologists. |
| − | some confusions when we communicate about this WG. To follow up with any contact with radiologists and/or the federation of radiologists. | ||
''' Date Next Meeting : March 4 at 4PM''' | ''' Date Next Meeting : March 4 at 4PM''' | ||
Revision as of 13:16, 24 February 2021
Contents
Attendees
- Bruno Casneuf
- Elfi Goessaert
- Erwin Bellon
- José Costa Teixeira
- Karen Anthonissen
- Nick Hermans
- Robin Bosman
- Sander Vandenwyngaert, VMBV
- Tom Deprez
- Wouter Huysse
Excused
- Robin Decoster
- Arnaud Lippert
- Geoffrey Stenuit
- Karlien Erauw
- Katleen Smedts
- Pieter Devolder
Agenda
- Review of the datamodel
- input and feedback from medical imaging experts
Minutes
- How far do we go with the level of detail to provide?
- It is felt we shall have possibilities in the technical profile to provide for very detailed information when it is defined what the details entail. e.g. a very detailed valueset of codes is a big aid for semantic interoperability but the absence should not block us from working already towards publication of a technical profile.
- The GP input level is indeed confirmed to be on the detail level as in the examples presented by Karen in a previous WG. However, if a GP (or of course any other prescriber) has information on a more detailed level, the standards should provide for possibilities to include them. A typical example would be detailed information about a pacemaker as the presence of a pacemaker is very relevant. If the prescriber has detailed information on that pacemaker, the standard should provide to include it.
- The model should provide to include questionnaire responses. Still to be decided when and if we will be able to provide a standard questionnaire.
- The datamodel is reviewed
- ....
- ....
- ....
- I hope to finish these minutes by 25 February - please check back then
- ....
- ....
- ....
- ...
- Apparently, Recip-e reached out to some radiology experts concerning a possible future infrastructure. That might introduce some confusions when we communicate about this WG. To follow up with any contact with radiologists and/or the federation of radiologists.
Date Next Meeting : March 4 at 4PM
