Difference between revisions of "Minutes - Referral WG 2021-02-18"

From Health Level 7 Belgium Wiki
Line 26: Line 26:
 
* How far do we go with the level of detail to provide?
 
* How far do we go with the level of detail to provide?
 
::* 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.
 
::* 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, the standard should provide to include it.
+
::::* 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.
 
::::* 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)
 +
 
* The datamodel is reviewed
 
* The datamodel is reviewed
 
::*  
 
::*  

Revision as of 13:24, 24 February 2021

Attendees
  • Bruno Casneuf
  • Elfi Goessaert
  • Erwin Bellon
  • José Costa Teixeira
  • Karen Anthonissen
  • Nick Hermans
  • Robin Bosman
  • Sander Vandenwyngaert, VMBV
  • Tom Deprez
  • Wouter Huysse
Excused
  • Robin Decoster
  • Arnaud Lippert
  • Geoffrey Stenuit
  • Karlien Erauw
  • Katleen Smedts
  • Pieter Devolder
Agenda
  • Review of the datamodel
  • input and feedback from medical imaging experts
Minutes
  • How far do we go with the level of detail to provide?
  • 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)
  • The datamodel is reviewed
  • ....
  • ....
  • ....
  • I hope to finish these minutes by 25 February - please check back then
  • ....
  • ....
  • ....
  • ...
  • 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

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7belgium.org/index.php?title=Minutes_-_Referral_WG_2021-02-18&oldid=942"