Stream: implementers
Topic: Communication.topic seem underdefine
Eric Haas (Jul 27 2017 at 23:00):
trying to profile Communication and Communication.topic andCommunicationRrquest.topic are. under-defined. Specifically how does it differ from .reasonReference, .supportingInformation, .basedOn and .context and .definition? To me these other elements cover it all especially if a PC proposal to open up reasonReference to 'Any' is applied.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 28 2017 at 05:45):
Context = encounter or episode this communication occurred during. definition = protocol/order set this communication is implementing part of. basedOn = the order/plan/proposal that led to this communication occurring. supportingInformation = information intended to help enable the communication to occur (not sure this is in the 80% - can't think of good use cases for this being relevant). reasonReference = reason why the communication was necessary (e.g. patient is diabetic, so sending them information about low-glycemic index diets). topic = what the communication is talking about. E.g. I'm asking a question about this encounter; I'm discussing a change to this medication; etc. It's essentially the "subject line".
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 28 2017 at 05:45):
I think all of those are distinct elements and purposes
Eric Haas (Jul 28 2017 at 07:41):
It sounds more like a string than a reference. And the definition is woefully inadequate.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 28 2017 at 08:28):
Accept that the definition is inadequate. If the communication is "about" a resource, it makes sense for that to be a Reference. That way you can say "find me all the communications made about this AdverseEvent" or "This condition"
Eric Haas (Jul 29 2017 at 18:48):
'That way you can say "find me all the communications made about this AdverseEvent" or "This condition" ' - That is reasonReference. I would say subject line and reasonReference are two different things. I will make a GForge - I don't think I am the only one who is scratching his head... BTW thanks for responding.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 29 2017 at 19:10):
reasonReference is why the communication was made, not what it's about.
Eric Haas (Jul 29 2017 at 19:20):
Patient A, Encounter B, Dread Disease C:
Eric Haas (Jul 29 2017 at 19:21):
Provider D tells Agency PH about Dread Disease C
Eric Haas (Jul 29 2017 at 19:25):
reason is Condition (finding of Dread Disease). Subject Line of Communiciation: Case report for Patient A
Eric Haas (Jul 29 2017 at 19:26):
Is that right?
Eric Haas (Jul 29 2017 at 19:29):
how does topic and payload.contentreference differ then?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 29 2017 at 19:29):
The use for it as a reference would be something like this: Patient admitted to hospital as hypoglycemic. Communication sent to PCP with reason of hypoglycemia but topic is patient's insulin prescription. The payload would just be text.
Eric Haas (Jul 29 2017 at 19:30):
topic = payload
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 30 2017 at 03:30):
I'm not sending the prescription. I'm commenting on it. The prescription isn't the payload.
Eric Haas (Aug 03 2017 at 02:54):
Sorry... I am lost with your example Why are we talking about a prescription? If want to talk about a prescription the topic would be the prescription the reason would be patients hypoglycemia. payload would be ?? That is where is gets confusing with this resource. I never know whether referring to the thing itself ( prescription in your example) or the talking about the thing ( the
'hey I sent a prescription note' )
-
the payload is defined as "Text, attachment(s), or resource(s) that was communicated to the recipient." To me that is the thing = prescription
-
the topic is defined as the "The resources which were responsible for or related to producing this communication." when I read this I think = payload= prescription because that is the focus of the communication i.e. what we want to communicate.
-
reasonCode: "The reason or justification for the communication." are we talking about justifying the 'hey I sent a prescription note' or the original thing that was communicated. (the prescription)
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 03 2017 at 03:44):
Agree that "topic" definition is poor. A better definition would be "a resource that is the focus of a communication but is not actually conveyed - i.e. what the discussion is 'about'"
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 03 2017 at 03:45):
For example: Dr. Smith sends a letter (payload) to Dr. Jones talking about one of Dr. Jones prescriptions (topic) and his concerns about a DetectedIssue (reason)
Eric Haas (Aug 03 2017 at 03:55):
Thanks that helps. It possible then that payload is empty. e.g, Just letting you know you sent me this report.
Eric Haas (Aug 03 2017 at 03:56):
and is sound like reason is the reason for the secondary communication and not the prescription.
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 03 2017 at 04:28):
A communication is principly a record of what was communicated. So "Dr Smith sent this letter to Dr. Jones talking about one of Dr. Jones prescriptions and his concerns about a DetectedIssue". If you've got an empty payload, that means you don't know what was communicated. "Dr. Smith sent something to Dr. Jones talking about prescription x"
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 03 2017 at 04:29):
Reason is definitely the reason for the communication
Eric Haas (Aug 03 2017 at 04:33):
based upon this topic is not like a an email subject line. that sounds like it belongs in payload too...
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 03 2017 at 15:09):
What belongs in the payload? The "payload" is just "what was said/shared/provided".
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
