Minutes

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 (e.g. the type), 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.

Kidney function is also again confirmed as always very relevant information. This is also a good example where it would be relevant to provide more information.
In general, the model shall always provide for means to include more detailed relevant information when available with the prescriber. It shall also be mentioned it is indeed the expected the prescriber provides details on relevant information if the prescriber has those details. (Cfr. pacemaker case supra)

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

Anonymous