Stream: implementers
Topic: PHR topic
Grahame Grieve (Aug 07 2018 at 12:36):
@Aaron Seib @John Moehrke GF#13633 - do we want to make changes to this for the ballo?
Mikael Rinnetmäki (Aug 08 2018 at 14:29):
If the status still is as described in the issue, and requires more wording on what may be confusing, I'd like to at least follow the discussion. The term PHR can mean many things. I like how the working group Personal Health Record Work Group (for Electronic Health Records) makes it more explicit what it targets (as I understand, that's what is described in the usecases page referred to in the issue).
However, in Finland we're starting a national PHR that's an independent system solely for patient-generated health data - it's not directly tied to any EMR. And it's essentially just a FHIR server. See #finnish PHR .
Also, the term PHR might refer to a person's Apple Health account.
Again, I don't know how much this has been discussed outside the issue http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=13633. The #finnish PHR project might be willing to provide some input for use cases, if that's considered useful.
John Moehrke (Aug 10 2018 at 16:33):
@Mikael Rinnetmäki fantastic points. Can you add those to the GF#13633 ?
John Moehrke (Aug 10 2018 at 16:35):
How detailed is the uscases page intended to be? I read it today as being very high level. Thus th detail on PHR (other than the issues Makael mentions) are likely detailed enough. I don't think it is right to bring in detail that is more appropriate to be in an Implementation Guide, such as the consumer centered data exchange connectathon track, which gets into details around consent and authorization flows.
Grahame Grieve (Aug 10 2018 at 21:01):
right. it's intended to be very high level
Mikael Rinnetmäki (Aug 13 2018 at 19:54):
@John Moehrke it took me some time to get registered to gforge. Added the comments there now.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
