Difference between revisions of "Minutes - Patient Dossier WG 2023-09-21"
From Health Level 7 Belgium Wiki
KarlienErauw (talk | contribs) (Created page with "=== Attendees === * Anne Nerenhausen * Alexis Van Zeveren * Félix De Tavernier * Hanne Vuegen * Hans De Keersmaeker * Jean-Michel Polfliet * Pablo Christiaens * Veerle Michie...") |
KarlienErauw (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
::* see also in [https://github.com/hl7-be/patientwill/issues/12 issue 12] | ::* see also in [https://github.com/hl7-be/patientwill/issues/12 issue 12] | ||
| − | * The work on the implementation guide has started | + | * The work on the implementation guide has started, no updates |
::* [https://build.fhir.org/ig/hl7-be/patientwill/branches/issue-1/ issue 1 refers to the work on the logical model] | ::* [https://build.fhir.org/ig/hl7-be/patientwill/branches/issue-1/ issue 1 refers to the work on the logical model] | ||
* We will go over the [https://github.com/hl7-be/patientwill/issues issues, see here] | * We will go over the [https://github.com/hl7-be/patientwill/issues issues, see here] | ||
| − | ::* [https://github.com/hl7-be/patientwill/issues/ | + | ::* [https://github.com/hl7-be/patientwill/issues/13 issue 13 representative linked to willcode]: |
| − | ::* | + | ::* it might be useful to be able to put one representative for all will codes, other info might be useful |
* issue 11: consent.scope relation vs consent.provisioncode | * issue 11: consent.scope relation vs consent.provisioncode | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
::::* do we need another type of representative ? trusted person? | ::::* do we need another type of representative ? trusted person? | ||
::::* can the custodian be the same person as the performer ? normally not | ::::* can the custodian be the same person as the performer ? normally not | ||
| − | ::::* concepts need to be clarified by INAMI | + | ::::* concepts and business rules need to be clarified by INAMI |
| + | |||
| + | * we create a [https://github.com/hl7-be/patientwill/issues/10 new issue 14] : tehe group thinks that the notary document might have to be availabe at the HCP side, could we link ? to be investigated and specified in | ||
::* [https://github.com/hl7-be/patientwill/issues/9 issue 9]: update/remove links to artefacts | ::* [https://github.com/hl7-be/patientwill/issues/9 issue 9]: update/remove links to artefacts | ||
Revision as of 07:39, 21 September 2023
Contents
Attendees
- Anne Nerenhausen
- Alexis Van Zeveren
- Félix De Tavernier
- Hanne Vuegen
- Hans De Keersmaeker
- Jean-Michel Polfliet
- Pablo Christiaens
- Veerle Michiels
- Wouter De Jonghe
Excused
- Bart Decuypere
- Brecht Van Vooren
- Filoretta Velica
- Isabelle Pollet
- Jens Penny
- José Costa Teixeira
- Karlien Erauw
- Nick Hermans
- Philippe Baise
- Sam Jocqué
- Tom De Backer
- Walter Bollaert
Agenda
- Resolve issue/questions
Minutes
- The business rules document can be found here in NL and here in French:
- see also in issue 12
- The work on the implementation guide has started, no updates
- We will go over the issues, see here
- issue 13 representative linked to willcode:
- it might be useful to be able to put one representative for all will codes, other info might be useful
- issue 11: consent.scope relation vs consent.provisioncode
- the will code will be made mandatory in the logical model as this corresponds with the most important information, it corresponds with consent provision code in FHIR
- the category is FHIR int'l model is mandatory and is very similar to scope
- more investigation is necessary by eHealth platform
- issue 10: performer vs organisation
- the representative (mandaathouder) is in the logical model but not in the IG yet --> it is the custodian
- where do we get the INSZ number for a notary/judge ?
- do we need another type of representative ? trusted person?
- can the custodian be the same person as the performer ? normally not
- concepts and business rules need to be clarified by INAMI
- we create a new issue 14 : tehe group thinks that the notary document might have to be availabe at the HCP side, could we link ? to be investigated and specified in
- issue 9: update/remove links to artefacts
- it is a temporary version of the IG, the links will be updated by eHealth platform
- issue 8: kmehr/FHIR mapping
- for all existing documents in kmehr and the valuesets used there, a mapping to the FHIR valuesets is needed
- how are we going to tackle this ?
- see 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 in the business rules WillCategory and WillCode
- we will only add values to the existing kmehr values
- it seems that some kmehr values have been removed and some have not been mapped
- the mapping will be present in the business rules document
- where will the mapping be made available ?
- Next actions:
- continue resolution of issues
Next Patient Dossier/Patient Will WG meeting: 5 Oct Sep at 9AM
