Stream: implementers
Topic: MedicationDispense.dispenser
Grahame Grieve (Mar 14 2017 at 00:27):
what happened to MedicationDispense.dispenser in R3? @Scott Robertson @Melva Peters @Michelle (Moseman) Miller
Grahame Grieve (Mar 14 2017 at 00:36):
if performer is only dispenser, then the documetnation should say so explicitly (no useless generic documentation) (it would be better if the name said so too). If performer can be other than the dispenser, then there's some kind of type element needed
Melva Peters (Mar 14 2017 at 13:22):
That is where it went @Grahame Grieve - when we harmonized with event logical model. I'll add a tracker item to fix.
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Mar 14 2017 at 13:23):
I would broaden the ask to also include MedAdmin (which has a performer without a type).
For MedDispense, I traced the initial change to align to workflow back to GF#12386, which did include performer.role. However, I found another tracker (GF#12831) that subsequently removed performer.role. That second tracker was logged Feb 15 and references a Zulip discussion, which I assume was https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/implementers/topic/Workflow.20pattern. I wasn't on the Pharmacy call Feb 22 when that tracker was discussed, but I'm just guessing it may have stemmed from a related email sent to the listserv (http://lists.hl7.org/read/messages?id=308629) when you suggested "Pharmacy should consider removing type, or making a medications specific list".
Grahame Grieve (Mar 14 2017 at 19:14):
thanks @Melva Peters and @Michelle (Moseman) Miller is there any prospect that these two can be fixed as a QA issue?
Melva Peters (Mar 14 2017 at 19:52):
The removal of the type was done because Pharmacy didn't have time to do this before the freeze. I'm not sure it can be done as a QA item unless we added a comment to say that the primary actor for a dispense is typically a pharmacist with a note that this will be reviewed and updated in the next release. I don't think the same can be done for MedAdmin. Thoughts?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 14 2017 at 20:09):
without a type, the performer can really only be safely the dispenser, no?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 14 2017 at 20:10):
it would be good for the definition to explicitly say 'dispenser' with a note that this will be reviewed for R4
Melva Peters (Mar 14 2017 at 22:06):
I can add the update to the definition. Do I need FMG approval for this?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 15 2017 at 00:37):
no
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
