Minutes - FHIR Validation Group 2021-10-14
Friday, 14th October 2021, 10:00 CET
- Review and Approve Agenda
- FHIR Use Cases for care sets
- Discuss the status and engagement around BeVaccine
- Vault or project-specific specifications
- FHIR Governance process improvement
- Labo pilot
- FHIR SNOMED-CT Terminology server
- Anne Nerenhausen
- Filoretta Velica
- Karlien Erauw
- Anne Nerenhausen
- Jean-Michel Polfliet
- Stijn Longin
- Jose Costa Teixeira (scribe)
FHIR Use Cases
Currently we have different ways of documenting use cases. This creates ambiguity and overhead. In the Medication IG, we made several use cases (example: use case and example-scenario) . While the Medication Record may have a complexity that justifies such a quantity, other IGs could be less demanding but they still need the use cases.
Common best practices and needs:
- Use cases should be inventorized
- Use cases should be documented - which format?
- Use cases should be documented - where?
- Use cases should drive mandatory testing
Labo Reports Publication
eHealth proposes to publish the current "frozen" artifacts into simplifier, on eHealth, even in draft mode. Justification is that some people may want to refer to the eHealth Implementation Package. There is pressure to start implementing asap. José suggests that this is not in line with the process, because eHealth only publishes standards that are approved by the Program Board. And there is no need to publish this in a second place. In fact, this is the same as we had in Medication some months ago. Karlien supports this concern, and explains that we have a working, agreed process and it must be followed - otherwise we are bypassing the process, which we don't want. And the work is not delayed if we don't publish on eHealth. Anne agrees.
Jean-Michel will go back with the reaction from the group and see what can be the way forward.
Suggestion: it is not yet clear what/where all the ImplementationGuides are - we know that there are "Development" ImplementationGuides, we may have Release Candidates, but this needs to be further exposed so that people can find it easily.
- Stijn notices that there seems to be an initiative to publish information using the BeVaccination profiles within this year. Flanders is not meaning to go to production that soon, but wants to be involved on the use cases and specifications. Flanders requires to be involved in the working groups about Vaccination.
- Filoretta would also want Abrumet to be involved in the discussions and agrees with Stijn.
- RSW has also expressed a similar concern
- The motivation seems to be that as from 2022, the regions would have the role to have the vaccination registries.
- José describes the situation as is:
- BeVaccination profiles history and work group:
- BeVaccination is a base specification, deliberately left open.
- Vaccination can remain published as "Active". It has been following the process and is officially published.
- Our approach is not ask for a detailed approval of all the details, but expect any blockings or negative contents.
- Requests to set a profile to "draft" is a change, and should follow the process as well.
- We will continue to work on a "executive summary" for the future, to make sure that stakeholders are aware of what is being approved.
- The program board could ask for a change in the process to use that instead of the Project Proposal.
Vault or project-specific IGs / specifications