Stream: implementers
Topic: Patient Religion
Paul Knapp (Nov 28 2016 at 10:30):
Why is this a US Realm extension not a standard element?
Patrick Werner (Nov 28 2016 at 13:23):
because of the 80-20 rule? I don't think the religion of a patient is relavant for the determination of the treatment
Paul Knapp (Nov 28 2016 at 15:37):
Really - a number of religions restrict the treatments allowed (eg. transfusions) similar to how they restrict food (eg. pork) and end-of-life handling. Based on the 80% guideline I think we need to look at whether religion is normally recorded - and certainly for North America and the middle east it is.
Viktor Jernelöv (Nov 28 2016 at 15:46):
@Paul Knapp , is it the religion itself that's relevant to communicate or the actual limitations in treatments caused by the religion? The latter seem to be covered fairly well by DetectedIssue.
Paul Knapp (Nov 28 2016 at 15:55):
What I know is that I have never in a potential treatment setting been asked for my DetectedIssues or for a list of foods restrictions (other than intolerances) or treatment restrictions (other than drug intollerances) or end-of-life requirements - but I have often been asked my religion - so I'm guess that is what is still recorded.
Marc de Graauw (Nov 28 2016 at 16:59):
And the doctor inferring your treatment restrictions from your recorded religion is fine with you? As for 80/20: I have never been asked for my religion in Dutch Healthcare. I guess the same applies to most of Europe, though I can't be certain there.
Paul Knapp (Nov 28 2016 at 17:20):
It would lead them to ask questions which otherwize may not be required, or answeredable if you have died.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 28 2016 at 18:40):
I would expect to be asked my religion for a hospital admission here in Australia. So
- Europe : no
- USA: yes
- Australia: yes (inpatient)
- India: yes
- Middle East: yes
- Canada: @Jean Duteau ?
- South America: @diego kaminker
- Russia- @nicola (RIO) ?
- China - @Jingdong(JD) Li / @Lin Zhang ?
any advance on this list?
Paul Knapp (Nov 28 2016 at 18:42):
Canada yes
nicola (RIO/SS) (Nov 28 2016 at 19:06):
No religion is asked in Russia (like John Lennon wanted ;)
Simone Heckmann (Nov 28 2016 at 21:18):
In Germany you're asked if you're admitted to a hospital that's being operated by a religious organization. Mostly, so they know whether to send the priest or the mullah for spiritual support, no immediate impact on treatment or diet :)
I'd be fine with keeping this an extension, though. Maybe even better a national extension, because I'd expect the ValueSets to be vastly different in every country. ( you know, like "Jedi" is only a religion in Australia :D )
Simone Heckmann (Nov 28 2016 at 21:23):
Now that I think of it... I think it's being asked in conjunction with the queston of whether you require spiritual services. That doesn't sound like something that'd be captured with patient demographics... And might even be something that's independent from the patient's actual religion. Being admitted to a hospital may even make the atheist want to see a priest.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 28 2016 at 21:35):
yes, the value set varies, but that's no reason to not make it core (else we'd have hardly anything in core!)
Stefan Lang (Nov 28 2016 at 21:43):
Private and community operated hospitals in Germany ask for religion as well, at least the majority of the ones I know.
Igor Sirkovich (Nov 28 2016 at 22:01):
I'm not sure if Canada is “yes". In Ontario, we don't store religion in the provincial Client Registry and I'm not even sure if it's allowed to be stored by privacy regulations. I think this should stay as an extension.
François Macary (Nov 29 2016 at 08:26):
France is not only "no": It's forbidden.
More specifically, religion, ethnie, race are data items forbidden to ask and to record in any health record.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 29 2016 at 09:20):
thanks @François Macary , so does France have visiting priests etc in hospital? how do they know who to visit?
François Macary (Nov 29 2016 at 09:35):
Not from the HIS. Sure thing!
We're not very keen of priests visits in hospitals or clinics, anyway. When there are, its very informal and not ICT driven.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 29 2016 at 09:40):
ok thanks.
Lin Zhang (Nov 29 2016 at 23:18):
The question has been post to some social groups in our HIT community.
Lin Zhang (Nov 29 2016 at 23:18):
Most responses: definitely not.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 29 2016 at 23:52):
k thanks
Grahame Grieve (Nov 29 2016 at 23:53):
@Paul Knapp - you have enough information to create a task now
Peter Scholz (Nov 30 2016 at 08:05):
To make it a bit more complicated,
In gemarny religion may be asked, but then you have to ask the patient if this may be recorded an communicated due to privacy issues at least in some states
Brian Postlethwaite (Nov 30 2016 at 08:31):
Thanks everyone for the feedback on this issue, and PA appreciates this and confirms that the property is not to be a core property, and we are hapily providing an extensibly bound standard extension for where people desire to share the information, it can be communicated appropriately.
Lin Zhang (Nov 30 2016 at 09:07):
I mean, in China.
Lin Zhang (Nov 30 2016 at 09:07):
There is no direct/explicit requirements for patient religion in the official guidelines about how to write patient records.
Paul Knapp (Nov 30 2016 at 12:10):
It can be as an extension, just didn't seem right for it to be a US Realm specific thing.
Paul Knapp (Nov 30 2016 at 12:25):
@Victor DetectedIssue doesn't seem appropriate given "This resource is also not intended to be used in defining general prohibitions on actions such as "No NSAIDs", "No solid oral dose forms" or "No MRIs - metalic tatoos". These guidelines can be captured using the AllergyIntolerance, and/or Flag resources. Similarly this resource is not to be used to capture clinical facts that may imply contraindications such as pregnancy, breast feeding, patient preferences, past procedures, etc."
Viktor Jernelöv (Nov 30 2016 at 13:16):
@Paul Knapp right you are, DetectedIssue doesn't seem like the intended resource for this kind of information. Thanks for pointing that out. Given the case you gave where knowing the religion of a patient would trigger the clinician to ask some more detailed questions they otherwise wouldn't have asked, Flag itself would seem more appropriate. In combination with AllergyIntolerance and maybe Condition (and even Observation?) one should be able to cover the different needs.
Eric Haas (Dec 04 2016 at 08:47):
it was pegged to be removed from US-Core back in September. But needed a tracker. It will be voted on Tuesday at US Realm and is already been preapplied.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
