Stream: implementers
Topic: Scope of Appointment participant
Craig Newman (Jan 15 2021 at 16:48):
As part of a v2 message to FHIR mapping, we are wondering what the scope of Appointment.participant is. A v2 scheduling message includes concepts like:
placer contact - the person responsible for requesting the scheduling of a requested appointment
entered by user - the person responsible for entering the request for the scheduling of an appointment
filler contact - the person responsible for the scheduling of the requested appointment
Are these reasonable participation types to include in Appointment.participant by extending the value set bound to Appointment.participant.type? If not, where is a better place to store these concepts? Provenance? An extension?
Brian Postlethwaite (Jan 15 2021 at 18:24):
These don't sound like participants of the appointment, its more administrative metadata around it, so provenance/extensions or even service request might be appropriate (or Tasks?)
Jens Villadsen (Jan 15 2021 at 18:26):
We put the responsible persons/teams on an extension on the appointment. This also makes it a bit easier to do access control
Jens Villadsen (Jan 15 2021 at 18:27):
Our setup is not linked to any previous HL7 models - like v2
Brian Postlethwaite (Jan 15 2021 at 18:27):
PA would be interested in what extensions you needed here.
Jens Villadsen (Jan 15 2021 at 18:28):
Feel free to have a look here: https://docs.ehealth.sundhed.dk/latest/ig/StructureDefinition-ehealth-appointment.html https://docs.ehealth.sundhed.dk/latest/ig/StructureDefinition-ehealth-group-appointment.html https://docs.ehealth.sundhed.dk/latest/ig/StructureDefinition-ehealth-group-videoappointment.html https://docs.ehealth.sundhed.dk/latest/ig/StructureDefinition-ehealth-videoappointment.html
Jens Villadsen (Jan 15 2021 at 18:29):
Security rules that governs the access: https://ehealth-dk.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/EDTW/pages/291176482/Tokens+Roles+and+RBAC+ABAC#Patient/Appointment/Communication(eHealthMessage)/Person
Jens Villadsen (Jan 15 2021 at 18:30):
Secuirty rules for Group/Video-group appointments are pretty advanced
Brian Postlethwaite (Jan 15 2021 at 18:30):
Thanks, we'll take a look!
Jens Villadsen (Jan 15 2021 at 18:31):
And please do note we rely heavily on the custom invariants on the profiles as well
Hans Buitendijk (Jan 15 2021 at 22:40):
Sounds like we need some more discussion to understand how ARQ, SCH in particular relate to ServiceRequest and Appointment and Task, as Appointment does not have a basedOn, while a referral is using ServiceRequest. Could we use some WGM time during a quarter?
Lin Zhang (Jan 16 2021 at 00:55):
Any practices to represent the channel/access (something like a platform owner/operator organization) to make an appointment?
Brian Postlethwaite (Sep 01 2021 at 20:05):
We're going to take a look at the video conferencing part soon - and considering what can come into the international part.
We also had a question on what is a releasableResource? (shared through a national document repository)
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
