Difference between revisions of "Minutes - Referral WG 2022-03-22"

From Health Level 7 Belgium Wiki
 
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 50: Line 50:
 
::* do we need a general accr comment for the entire report
 
::* do we need a general accr comment for the entire report
 
::* if we keep the comment on the result level
 
::* if we keep the comment on the result level
−
* Answers - was already covered before, [https://economie.fgov.be/sites/default/files/Files/Publications/files/Belac-NL/BELAC-2-001-NL.pdf see all BELAC details here]  
+
* Answers - was already covered before, see all details [https://economie.fgov.be/nl/publicaties/reeks-belac-2-0xx-richtlijnen here] and [https://economie.fgov.be/sites/default/files/Files/Publications/files/Belac-NL/BELAC-2-001-NL.pdf here]  
 
::* Belac requires your accr nbr
 
::* Belac requires your accr nbr
 
::* Belac requires info at test level
 
::* Belac requires info at test level
Line 56: Line 56:
 
* experiences abroad: see question in FHIR chat - CLIA in the US, [https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179256-Orders-and-Observation-WG/topic/Accreditation.20organisations.20and.20observations.2Freports see here]
 
* experiences abroad: see question in FHIR chat - CLIA in the US, [https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179256-Orders-and-Observation-WG/topic/Accreditation.20organisations.20and.20observations.2Freports see here]
  
−
 
+
* Issue 103 - DNA info :
−
* Issue 105 - DNA info :
 
 
::* add it to note to BeLaboratroyObservation level
 
::* add it to note to BeLaboratroyObservation level
 
::* validate tomorrow with UZ Gent on 23/3
 
::* validate tomorrow with UZ Gent on 23/3
Line 66: Line 65:
 
::::* for some labs it would require a big change in the microbiology reporting
 
::::* for some labs it would require a big change in the microbiology reporting
 
::::* it is not an official viewpoint of the vendors  
 
::::* it is not an official viewpoint of the vendors  
−
::::* is a blob an option ?
+
::::* blob is a an option until the lab is ready for structured microbiology (the labs will need a lot of time for this change)
−
::* structured microbiology reporting is possible and there is a proposal  
+
::::* receiver will be able to parse it but not be able to save it in a unstructured way ; might not be a big problem
−
::* does Belgium will only do this in an unstructured way ?
+
::* structured microbiology reporting is possible and the pilot has a proposal/way of working
−
::::* structured microbiology reporting should be looked into as this is valuable
+
::* does Belgium will only do this in an unstructured way ? no, structured microbiology reporting should be looked into as this is valuable
−
::::::* how many Snomed CT codes are needed ? it seems that there are +/- 200
+
::::* how many Snomed CT codes are needed ? it seems that there are +/- 200
−
 
+
::* there will have to be in the implementation guide
−
TBC
+
::* WG decision: if the string value for the result field contains a new line character the content should be rendered in a non-proportional font. This will be added to the guidance.
−
 
 
−
* Issue 105 - microbiology reporting :
 
−
::* put observation under report results, so you can put antibiotic results that are also put as an observation
 
−
::* add an intermediate level and to be tested (MIPS at UZ Gent & CHU Charleroi)
 
−
 
 
−
* Questions that are open since a while - see issue 105
 
−
::* Q1:
 
−
::* Q2: what do other countries do about microbiology
 
−
::* Q3: is snomed CT code mandatory for germs code
 
−
* Q4: integration of RIS or IRS : would be an integration of an additional system...
 
−
::* all narrative answers must be supported, must be accepted - digital report should have the same content as paper reports
 
−
::::* there is a codesystem for the antibiotic values
 
−
::::::* interpretation is a codeable concept but there is also a value - put in the value
 
−
 
 
−
* Issue 108 - ACTH system URL
 
−
::* will we use ACTH code or lab code : does not matter
 
−
::::* there will not be a table having all ACTH codes unless the identifier is the same
 
−
::* ACTH codes can be used according to the rules described i.e. LOINC, Albert
 
  
−
* Issue 103: issue is not clear enough - need for clarification from Tom Fiers
+
* New issue: plan is to have a new release of the FHIR core resources
−
* Issue 102 : can be closed as has been added to the guidance
+
::* canonical url's of the core elements will change
−
* Issue 99: extensions that might be necessary at report level
+
::* does this FHIR group want to use the new/future version that will be released in the upcoming weeks, i.e. evolve to the 2.X.X version of the Belgian Profiles Standards
−
::* digital lab report has to  
+
::* WG does not want take a decision now
−
::* extension will be called "note" and that no type will be enforced/no standardized type
 
  
 +
* To be checked: note field at diagnostic report level available in latest FHIR impl guide ?
 +
* Info only: the GP softs part of the pilot will have 2 more months to import the structured FHIR lab reports once the FHIR profile is frozen
 +
* Philippe Cauchie has shared a table with [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14rtSFlpLfNW5aGs2bfowu39KftsCCFMd/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105469359652835948544&rtpof=true&sd=true codes for micro organisms Snomed CT] after the meeting re. microbiology
  
 
'''Agenda for next meeting''':
 
'''Agenda for next meeting''':
−
* come to a consensus on the open issues - please have a look at the proposed solution for the issues in status "To be validated by WG"
+
* wrap-up and resolution of any open issues if they arise
  
−
'''Next Meeting - next week as there are some open issues: on Tuesday March 22 or 29 - TBC at 4PM'''
+
'''Next Meeting - on Tuesday April 19 at 4PM as the Easter break is coming up - if plenty of new issues arise we'll meet also on April 12'''

Latest revision as of 11:14, 24 March 2022

Attendees

  • Dr Alain Derom
  • Bart Decuypere
  • Frederik De Kegel
  • Frederik Lenaerts
  • Hans De Keersmaecker
  • Jean-Michel Polfiet
  • Jos Bellen
  • Karlien Erauw
  • Kristof Jaubin
  • Lotte Adriaensen
  • Nico Vannieuwenhuyze (arrived late)
  • Olivier Lothaire
  • Peter Laridon
  • Philippe Cauchie
  • Stefan Waegemans
  • Sven Bisaro
  • Thibault Mahieu
  • Tom Tollenaere

Excused/Not present

  • Alexis Van Zeveren
  • Bart Havermans
  • Benny Verhamme
  • Filip Migom
  • Frédéric Istace
  • Hendrik De Moor
  • Joost Van Averbeke
  • José Costa Teixeira
  • Mieke Buckinx
  • Nick Hermans
  • Paul Neyens
  • Richard Francken
  • Robert Nicolas
  • Roland Vueghs
  • Theo Schumacher
  • Tom Fiers
  • Toon Schiemsky
  • Veerle Claessens
  • Werner De Mulder
  • Yulia Shornikova

Agenda

  • Discuss and resolve open issues

Minutes

Resolution of open issues: https://github.com/hl7-be/hl7-be-fhir-laboratory-report/projects/1

  • Issue 98 - accreditation comment
  • what is really required for the Belac accreditation ?
  • do we need a general accr comment for the entire report
  • if we keep the comment on the result level
  • Answers - was already covered before, see all details here and here
  • Belac requires your accr nbr
  • Belac requires info at test level
  • Belac requires to put more info in the "footer" ; behind every test you can put more details
  • experiences abroad: see question in FHIR chat - CLIA in the US, see here
  • Issue 103 - DNA info :
  • add it to note to BeLaboratroyObservation level
  • validate tomorrow with UZ Gent on 23/3
  • Issue 105 - microbiology reporting :
  • it is in the scope of the pilot
  • structured microbiology lab reporting might be very difficult for some lab/LIS vendors
  • for some labs it would require a big change in the microbiology reporting
  • it is not an official viewpoint of the vendors
  • blob is a an option until the lab is ready for structured microbiology (the labs will need a lot of time for this change)
  • receiver will be able to parse it but not be able to save it in a unstructured way ; might not be a big problem
  • structured microbiology reporting is possible and the pilot has a proposal/way of working
  • does Belgium will only do this in an unstructured way ? no, structured microbiology reporting should be looked into as this is valuable
  • how many Snomed CT codes are needed ? it seems that there are +/- 200
  • there will have to be in the implementation guide
  • WG decision: if the string value for the result field contains a new line character the content should be rendered in a non-proportional font. This will be added to the guidance.
  • New issue: plan is to have a new release of the FHIR core resources
  • canonical url's of the core elements will change
  • does this FHIR group want to use the new/future version that will be released in the upcoming weeks, i.e. evolve to the 2.X.X version of the Belgian Profiles Standards
  • WG does not want take a decision now
  • To be checked: note field at diagnostic report level available in latest FHIR impl guide ?
  • Info only: the GP softs part of the pilot will have 2 more months to import the structured FHIR lab reports once the FHIR profile is frozen
  • Philippe Cauchie has shared a table with codes for micro organisms Snomed CT after the meeting re. microbiology

Agenda for next meeting:

  • wrap-up and resolution of any open issues if they arise

Next Meeting - on Tuesday April 19 at 4PM as the Easter break is coming up - if plenty of new issues arise we'll meet also on April 12

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7belgium.org/index.php?title=Minutes_-_Referral_WG_2022-03-22&oldid=1560"