Minutes - Referral WG 2023-04-21

Attendees

• Anne Nerenhausen
• Bart Decuypere
• Bart Reekmans
• Dorsan de Fabricheckers
• Emily Sevrin
• Geert Vandenhole
• Hans De Keersmaecker
• Jean-Michel Polfliet
• Julien Beard
• Karlien Erauw
• Katrien Dickx
• Lionel Cremer

• Philippe Baise
• Philippe Lejoly
• Robin Merckx

Excused

• Anthony Maton
• Ben Goosse
• Christophe Behaegel
• Cyprien Janssens
• Dorsan de Fabricheckers
• Jacques Yakoub
• Jean-Francois Coquelet
• José Costa Teixeira
• Katleen Smedts
• Katrien Thorré
• Maarten Cobbaert
• Marleen Van Eygen
• Maxime Daive
• Nathan Peeters (INAMI)
• Laurent Lamouline
• Pablo Christiaens
• Pieter Devolder
• Richard Francken

Agenda

• review update of logical model following the update of the business rules
• continue resolution of issues

Meeting Minutes

• Bart presents the changes in the logical model as a result of the updated business rules

• focus is on the June (first) release so the changes to the logical model are limited to that
• creating of the use cases to the templates that will be released in June
• in the business rules V0.21 is more information than in the profiles
• the IG and logical model will be in sync

in the business rules it will be highlighted what is not included in the first release

• for the next release (after June) a new branch will be created in github
• the focus will be on the master branch, that corresponds with the June (first) release

• Questions and issues resulting from the FHIR UHMEP workshop on 20 April

• can we indicate for each field in the logical model who can fill in/update the field ?

• the info will be made available in the cookbook and the business rules, not in the logical model

• confusion between the recorder and the requester ; can we clarify the definition of the recorder in the logical model ? it the person who last updated the serviceRequest/referral prescription

• if a co-prescriber signs the referral/requst he will become the recorder ; the prescriber will not change
• the prescriber is the origin of the referral/request
• the wording in the logical model will be adapted by Bart

• for nursing prescription : annex 81 ; a nurse sends some comments that she has to sign and which have to be signed by a doctor, who will be the co-prescriber

• validationPeriod: can this be changed into validityPeriod

• WG agrees to make the change

• Presentation of updated versions of the valuesets

• problem codes: for wound care there are different types of wounds

• combination of Snomed CT and temporary codes
• the Belgian refset for problem is under construction

• prescriber has to indicate why it is useful

• Update of business rules V0.21, see in issue 219

• change for eAgreement to include links

• eAgreement: ReferenceID and ReceptionDate (when performer receives the response from advisory doctor)
• in serviceRequest a link to the claimResponse can be put (an update of the business rules is needed)

• medication lines that have an impact on the nursing templates (medication, posology and dosage)

• structured solution, not textual one, in the same way as in VIDIS - it is a temporary solution though as VIDIS has not been finalised yet

• separate new issues will be created to ensure follow up actions on each of these changes

• new field in logical model device on woundcare : action + type of material (attribute device)

• there will be 3 serviceRequests having a RequestGroup that groups the 3 of them

• or one ServiceRequest with some orderDetails ? TBC

• it will be clarified in the upcoming weeks as a meeting on this topic will happen next week

• new field in business rules Amamnesis
• prescription support information: are still present in the business rules/logical model

• ID and reason (reason of deviation on recommendation)

• New issues in Issue list
• Is orderDetail precise enough, see here

• some more meetings will happen to discuss each template

• Change on Requester field, see here

• modify to a BePractionerRole : agreed upon

• Add name/version of client software, see here

• looked at eHealth specification
• name and version will not be added in metadata as it is already present
• issue can be closed as no action is needed

• Unmapped fields, see here

• link to issue 218
• this can be solved in the same way as issue 218

• Namespace for identifier, see here

• INAMI security team has been consulted and is not confident on the proposed solution, ticket will be updated

• Body locations inconsistencies, see here

• inconsistencies will be resolved next week, they will be available in a new version of the business rules by next week

• CoSign, see here

• have the result been looked at ? industry still have to come back on this

• Route and device, see here

• info is in the new business rules

• Versioning and evolution of profiles, see here

• to be discussed and decided upon in FHIR Validation & Infrastructure WG

• close issue 169
• Modifications resulting from business rules will be applied in the logical model and profile

Agenda next meeting

• review update of logical model following the update of the business rules
• continue resolution of issues

Next meeting: next week Friday 28 April at 9AM