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

From Health Level 7 Belgium Wiki
Line 70: Line 70:
 
::* does Belgium will only do this in an unstructured way ? no, 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
 
TBC
Line 86: Line 88:
 
::::::* interpretation is a codeable concept but there is also a value - put in the value  
 
::::::* 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
 
* Issue 102 : can be closed as has been added to the guidance
 
* Issue 99: extensions that might be necessary at report level
 
::* digital lab report has to
 
::* extension will be called "note" and that no type will be enforced/no standardized type
 
  
  
Line 101: Line 94:
 
* 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"
 
* 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"
  
'''Next Meeting - next week as there are some open issues: on Tuesday March 22 or 29 - TBC at 4PM'''
+
'''Next Meeting - next week as there are still some open issues: on Tuesday March 29 - at 4PM'''

Revision as of 15:31, 22 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
  • 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 105 - 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
  • is a blob an option until the lab is ready for structured microbiology ? the labs will need the time for this change
  • 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


TBC

  • 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



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"

Next Meeting - next week as there are still some open issues: on Tuesday March 29 - at 4PM