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 expected the prescriber provides details on relevant information if the prescriber has those details. (Cfr. pacemaker case supra)

Building on the minutes supra: in the data model this is expressed as annotation (purely text) or code (structured information but no further details) or reference to something (possibility to provide full details on something)
References to previous imagingStudy: only when relevant for this prescription, not meant as exhaustive overview of previous imaging studies.
Is it needed to provide free text ('Annotation') input for contraIndication and proposedInvestigation?
The prescriber
Previous laboratory results can be expressed as 'Observation' (they should also be available under contraIndication)
soberExceptMedication does not need to be a seperate element in the model
It should always be clear when extra information is provided in the order it concerns information (or references to information) that is relevant in this order.

Being relevant is typically something that cannot be enforced technically. Guidance like that should however be provided somewhere in the profile (via extra explanations in the elements and/or a guidance page in a guide)

How to deal with absence of information? Specifically for contraIndication, it would be interesting to have a clear indication why information is not present.

Using a minimal cardinality of 1 we could enforce behavior using some of the codes in the HL7 nullFlavor set. (i.e. we can define that some codes of https://www.hl7.org/fhir/r4/v3/NullFlavor/cs.html shall be used)
Typically in this prescription, the prescriber would mark that it was asked/investigated but according to the best knowledge of the prescriber there are no known.
In the same context, a suspected pregnancy is relevant to signal.

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