Stream: committers
Topic: QA - code systems ownership
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Dec 01 2018 at 19:29):
@Grahame Grieve Why does it look like Patient Care owns the request and event status code systems? As far as I can tell, those code systems were defined in the request and event spreadsheets. FHIR-I correctly owns the value sets for request status and event status.
http://build.fhir.org/codesystem-event-status.html
http://build.fhir.org/codesystem-request-status.html
http://build.fhir.org/valueset-request-status.html
http://build.fhir.org/valueset-event-status.html
Grahame Grieve (Dec 03 2018 at 19:34):
I don't know. the tooling guesses at code systems and value sets. I'll investigate
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Dec 04 2018 at 13:44):
@Grahame Grieve Patient Care inherited AdverseEvent from BRR, but I found during QA that some of the codes aren't in the proper case (the codes have capital letters). I didn't change them since it would be considered a substantive change, but I saw the other discussion about v2/v3 case and wanted to check if you would like these codes changed or not?
- http://build.fhir.org/valueset-adverse-event-seriousness.html
- http://build.fhir.org/valueset-adverse-event-causality-method.html
- http://build.fhir.org/valueset-adverse-event-causality-assess.html
Grahame Grieve (Dec 04 2018 at 18:14):
unrelated discussion. I'm not sure about fixing the codes. What will PC set the maturity level to? Or will it stand at 0?
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Dec 05 2018 at 13:32):
PC will keep the AdverseEvent maturity at 0
Grahame Grieve (Dec 05 2018 at 20:01):
then I don't really care whether you fix it or leave it
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
