Stream: implementers
Topic: Group Resource Question
Marshall Weekley (Nov 07 2017 at 16:02):
We are needing to provide a list of approved cosigners for a given physician. We have come to the conclusion that this would make sense to be a group. Does this sound like correct place to add this type of list?
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 07 2017 at 16:19):
That seems reasonable. The plan would be to have an extension that links from the Practitioner to the Group?
Marshall Weekley (Nov 07 2017 at 17:08):
Each Practitioner would be a member entity refernece to the group.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 07 2017 at 20:24):
And membership in the group implies that any other member in the group can co-sign?
Marshall Weekley (Nov 07 2017 at 20:37):
Yes that they can cosign for the given Practitioner.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 08 2017 at 13:05):
That can work, though it's not clear how you'd distinguish that particular Group (the one identifying interchangeable co-signers) from other possible groups. Possibly with Group.code?
Marshall Weekley (Nov 08 2017 at 14:08):
The group code is what were thinking to identifiy what this group is.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 08 2017 at 15:00):
I think this approach could work
Brian Postlethwaite (Nov 10 2017 at 09:23):
The other resource could be considered is the CareTeam (if not all members in the group are equal)
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
