Difference between revisions of "Minutes - Referral WG 2021-12-07"

From Health Level 7 Belgium Wiki
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
draft
 
 
===== Attendees =====  
 
===== Attendees =====  
draft
 
* Alexis Van Zeveren
 
 
* Dr Alain Derom  
 
* Dr Alain Derom  
 
* Bart Decuypere  
 
* Bart Decuypere  
* Benny Verhamme
+
* Frederik De Kegel
* Frédéric Istace
 
 
* Frederik Lenaerts  
 
* Frederik Lenaerts  
 
* Hans De Keersmaecker  
 
* Hans De Keersmaecker  
 
* Jean-Michel Polfiet  
 
* Jean-Michel Polfiet  
* Joost Van Averbeke
 
 
* Jos Bellen  
 
* Jos Bellen  
 
* José Costa Teixeira  
 
* José Costa Teixeira  
 
* Karlien Erauw  
 
* Karlien Erauw  
* Kristof Jaubin
+
* Kristof Jaubin  
* Nick Hermans
+
* Peter Laridon (left early)
* Nico Vannieuwenhuyze
+
* Robert Nicolas  
* Peter Laridon  
+
* Theo Schumacher
* Robert Nicolas (Medispring)
 
 
* Thibault Mahieu  
 
* Thibault Mahieu  
 +
* Tom Fiers
 
* Tom Tollenaere  
 
* Tom Tollenaere  
 
* Stefan Waegemans  
 
* Stefan Waegemans  
 
* Toon Schiemsky  
 
* Toon Schiemsky  
 +
* Werner De Mulder
  
 
===== Excused/Not present =====  
 
===== Excused/Not present =====  
draft
+
* Alexis Van Zeveren
* Frederik De Kegel
+
* Benny Verhamme
 +
* Frédéric Istace
 +
* Joost Van Averbeke
 
* Mieke Buckinx
 
* Mieke Buckinx
* Olivier Lothaire
+
* Nico Vannieuwenhuyze
 +
* Nick Hermans
 
* Paul Neyens
 
* Paul Neyens
 
* Richard Francken  
 
* Richard Francken  
* Theo Schumacher
 
* Tom Fiers
 
  
 
===== Agenda =====
 
===== Agenda =====
* Rework on issues resulted from the pilot phase  
+
* Rework on issues resulted from the pilot phase, issues #48 and #50 having priority
  
 
===== Minutes =====
 
===== Minutes =====
draft
+
* Up-to-date list of issues can be consulted [https://github.com/hl7-be/hl7-be-fhir-laboratory-report/issues here]
* Up-to-date list of issues can always be consulted [https://github.com/hl7-be/hl7-be-fhir-laboratory-report/issues here]
+
* Issue 48 & 50 have priority: no structure is available, does extension need to be created ? Both are linked.
* Issue 19: unique identifier
+
* Issue 48 "At result level: accredited and / or performed by external laboratory: can we have extensions for both?"
::* naming system would be created for unique identifier for the bundle - one for Belgium
+
* Issue 50 "At Organization-level, could there be a note-field (or other) to indicate the BELAC accreditation of the laboratory?"there is no note/comment field at organisation level. Do we need this ? A lab is allowed to do it, it is not mandatory. Having a possibility for a note at test level and note on report level, gives every lab a solution. Comment field at diagnostic report level makes sense. In practice it is put on the footer of the report by labs. There is no comment field now at diagnostic report level. here is no comment field now at bundle level. Range of identifiers can be added (RIZIV number), unlimited number can be added, adding here one for lab accreditation can be added here. Do we need to add NamingSystem, f.e. https://economie.fgov.be/belac, but what if a lab has a Dutch accreditation ? Issue moves to resolved
::* how do labs need to manage amendments of protocols?
+
* Issue 50: it should be noted if test is under accreditation or not - it is not mandatory - if you are accreditated you have to mention if the test is not done under accreditation
::::* form of unique identifier
+
* Issue 50: "At result level: accredited and/or performed by external laboratory: can we have extensions for both?" : proposal to put it unstructured in a note at BeObservationLaboratory level - we could create 2 boolean extension fields will be created, not mandatory, one for accredited result, one to indicate an external result but this would only serve Belac
::::* uniqueness of identifier has to be at lab level
+
* Issue 51: Common LOINC codes can appear twice/multiple times in the same DiagnosticReport (all Specimen Processing comments). It can also happen upon a trombosite test using different agents - same LOINC code with different agents or with timestamps. So it is not an issue and can be closed.
::::::* one lab will do it in this way: protocol order number + version number of the protocol, can be prefixed by the RIZIV number of the lab
+
* Priority of other issues will be determined in the pilot phase meeting on Wednesday, following on this, issue resolutions will be presented next week
* Issue 40ServiceRequest references
 
::* an order creates a ServiceRequest - should ServiceRequests also be stored in the DiagnosticReport.basedOn ?
 
::::* it is not needed to duplicate the references, only put it in DiagnosticReport, if mentioned as suborders at Observation level
 
* Issue 28: notion of "sequence number" on specimen
 
::* important is to be able to note unique ID of specimen, order of sampling is not useful/not relevant
 
::* no action to be taken
 
* Issue 20: May url references to identifier systems be empty or dummy ?
 
::* there must also be a url that identifies the system and has to be unique within the namespace it belongs to (per lab) but it can be dummy
 
::* it cannot be empty
 
::* see: "If the system is a URL, it SHOULD resolve. Resolution might be to a web page that describes the identifier system and/or supports look-up of identifiers. Alternatively, it could be to a NamingSystem resource instance. Resolvable URLs are generally preferred by implementers over non-resolvable URNs, particularly opaque URNs such as OIDs (urn:oid:) or UUIDs (urn:uuid:). If used, OIDs and UUIDs may be registered in the HL7 OID registry  and SHOULD be registered if the content is shared or exchanged across institutional boundaries."
 
::::* should : recommended, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119
 
::* issue was resolved last week, nothing to be done
 
* Issue 42
 
::* no action to be taken
 
::* the precision that is mentioned in the FHIR message is the precision that is used by the lab
 
* Issue 29: notion of "specimen collected after x... min"
 
::* LOINC has different codes, these should be used by the labs, if not, then the interval has to specified separately
 
* no action to be taken
 
* Issue 34
 
::* was discussed previously
 
::* if RETAM code exist, it must be used, see https://build.fhir.org/ig/hl7-be/hl7-be-fhir-laboratory-report/guidance.html, 3.10.1 Use of Retam codes
 
::::* what with LOINC codes that are not in the RETAM table ? we should make a distinction b/w LOINC codes in RETAM table and the ones that are not - to create new issue on this so that we adapt the guidance
 
::::* issue 34 can be closed
 
 
 
  
 
'''Next Meeting:''' on Tuesday Dec 14 4PM
 
'''Next Meeting:''' on Tuesday Dec 14 4PM

Latest revision as of 15:04, 14 December 2021

Attendees
  • Dr Alain Derom
  • Bart Decuypere
  • Frederik De Kegel
  • Frederik Lenaerts
  • Hans De Keersmaecker
  • Jean-Michel Polfiet
  • Jos Bellen
  • José Costa Teixeira
  • Karlien Erauw
  • Kristof Jaubin
  • Peter Laridon (left early)
  • Robert Nicolas
  • Theo Schumacher
  • Thibault Mahieu
  • Tom Fiers
  • Tom Tollenaere
  • Stefan Waegemans
  • Toon Schiemsky
  • Werner De Mulder
Excused/Not present
  • Alexis Van Zeveren
  • Benny Verhamme
  • Frédéric Istace
  • Joost Van Averbeke
  • Mieke Buckinx
  • Nico Vannieuwenhuyze
  • Nick Hermans
  • Paul Neyens
  • Richard Francken
Agenda
  • Rework on issues resulted from the pilot phase, issues #48 and #50 having priority
Minutes
  • Up-to-date list of issues can be consulted here
  • Issue 48 & 50 have priority: no structure is available, does extension need to be created ? Both are linked.
  • Issue 48 "At result level: accredited and / or performed by external laboratory: can we have extensions for both?"
  • Issue 50 "At Organization-level, could there be a note-field (or other) to indicate the BELAC accreditation of the laboratory?": there is no note/comment field at organisation level. Do we need this ? A lab is allowed to do it, it is not mandatory. Having a possibility for a note at test level and note on report level, gives every lab a solution. Comment field at diagnostic report level makes sense. In practice it is put on the footer of the report by labs. There is no comment field now at diagnostic report level. here is no comment field now at bundle level. Range of identifiers can be added (RIZIV number), unlimited number can be added, adding here one for lab accreditation can be added here. Do we need to add NamingSystem, f.e. https://economie.fgov.be/belac, but what if a lab has a Dutch accreditation ? Issue moves to resolved
  • Issue 50: it should be noted if test is under accreditation or not - it is not mandatory - if you are accreditated you have to mention if the test is not done under accreditation
  • Issue 50: "At result level: accredited and/or performed by external laboratory: can we have extensions for both?" : proposal to put it unstructured in a note at BeObservationLaboratory level - we could create 2 boolean extension fields will be created, not mandatory, one for accredited result, one to indicate an external result but this would only serve Belac
  • Issue 51: Common LOINC codes can appear twice/multiple times in the same DiagnosticReport (all Specimen Processing comments). It can also happen upon a trombosite test using different agents - same LOINC code with different agents or with timestamps. So it is not an issue and can be closed.
  • Priority of other issues will be determined in the pilot phase meeting on Wednesday, following on this, issue resolutions will be presented next week

Next Meeting: on Tuesday Dec 14 4PM