Stream: implementers
Topic: Proper modelling of different kinds of appointments
Jens Villadsen (Mar 01 2021 at 13:54):
I have a system where I'm supporting multiple types of appointsments while also fronting a 3.party system for video appointments. Currently I have, one-to-one appointments, group appointments, one-to-one video appointments and group video appointments. I'm looking for a proper place to put that piece of the puzzle where I can diiferentiate between them. I imagine that the proper candidate fields would be either service category, service type or appointment type, but I'm open to suggestions. @Brian Postlethwaite would you happen to have an oppion to this matter?
Jens Villadsen (Mar 03 2021 at 09:45):
@Brian Postlethwaite I would really value any input to this. Maybe @Alexander Henket would also have something to say here? I'm currently leaning towards expanding the appointmentType with values such as Remote Consultation or Remote Group Consultation. What's PA's view on this? Were remote appointements something that what on the radar when the Appointment resource was originally crafted?
Alexander Henket (Mar 03 2021 at 19:11):
I don't think we are much help from NL. Virtual Group Appointment for us is serviceType VR (V3 ActCode), with as many .participant.actor(Patient) as privacy would allow to return.
Alexander Henket (Mar 03 2021 at 19:14):
You could imagine .participant.actor(Group) actually for this. Then the Group could say what the criteria for inclusion in that Group are so you know what type of people you would be in the Group with without violating privacy. STU3 and R4 do not support that however. We stopped our efforts in Appointment. All institutions and vendors seem to care about is running a portal with custom backend. They never really went for a FHIR solution.
Jens Villadsen (Mar 03 2021 at 20:08):
Ok, thx - ... serviceTypesays: "The specific service that is to be performed during this appointment". I don't see VR as being service type specific. I see that more as an appointment type
Jens Villadsen (Mar 03 2021 at 20:09):
We reversed the setup and wrapped the custom backend in FHIR ;)
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
