Stream: implementers
Topic: consent mapping
Jens Villadsen (Apr 11 2018 at 09:11):
The mapping specified at https://www.hl7.org/fhir/consent-mappings.html seems a bit odd in the context of a consent as a living will. How does a living will map to a FinanicalConsent?
John Moehrke (Apr 11 2018 at 11:56):
The workgroup that owns Consent @David Pyke has not had much input on consents other than their prime use-case of Privacy consent. If you have use-cases, please offer them to the group and participate in improving the resource.
David Pyke (Apr 11 2018 at 12:05):
The original context for Consent was a profile on Contract. Since that time, the Consent resource was created but mapping back to the V3 RIM still depends on the original profile. Additional mappings would be appreciated.
Radu Craioveanu (Sep 19 2018 at 17:39):
@David Pyke , @John Moehrke we are building a Consent Object for allowing for CCDAs to be exchanged. One of the pieces of information that we want to capture in the Consent object is the Clinician/Provider who captured the Consent. What is the appropriate way to capture that? Adding @Manju Sampath
David Pyke (Sep 19 2018 at 17:50):
That's not part of our current design. That information would best be part of the source documentation attached to Consent.source
John Moehrke (Sep 19 2018 at 18:16):
Hi @Radu Craioveanu In STU3 that was recorded in Consent.actor. This element seems to have been eliminated in current build. It would be good for you to express your need in a ballot comment or Change Request.
Radu Craioveanu (Sep 19 2018 at 18:16):
Thank you David. The business workflow we need to support is as follows: In our EHR, a Siemens/Cerner platform, the Clinician will enter an Assessment capturing consent data from the Patient. That will trigger a data flow into a HAPI FHIR server, and the Assessment will be converted to Questionnaire Response. The Questionnaire Response will trigger the creating of a Consent Resource also. The auther of the Questionnaire Response is the person we want to track in the Consent. I suppose we could capture the Questionnaire Response in the Consent.source and the Clinician who created entered the Assessement in Soarian/Cerner will be QuestionnaireResponse.Author.
@Manju Sampath , it looks like we can go ahead with the above path.
John Moehrke (Sep 19 2018 at 18:18):
I suspect it got eliminated incorrectly thinking that it was only a form of what is now a Consent.provision.actor; which is specifically about a rule attribute
Radu Craioveanu (Sep 19 2018 at 18:19):
@John Moehrke , is there a way to get an up-to-date list of changes between STU3 and the current Build? For all resources.
John Moehrke (Sep 19 2018 at 18:23):
All changes are most formally represented by Change Requests that are voted on. There is some overview of high impact on the ballot page http://build.fhir.org/ballot-intro.html
John Moehrke (Sep 19 2018 at 18:23):
and http://build.fhir.org/diff.html
Abbie Watson (Sep 24 2018 at 21:14):
We would second the interest in Consent.actor.
Radu Craioveanu (Sep 25 2018 at 19:56):
another issue re Consent. @John Moehrke @David Pyke @Manju Sampath --- we would want to track the Visit (reference to Episode of Care) this consent was captured. What do you recommend in R3 or R4? --- much appreciated, Radu
David Pyke (Sep 25 2018 at 20:38):
AS with your previous question, the best way is to have all information regarding the capture and signing of consent included as part of the information linked to Consent.source. The Consent resource is really designed to be show the computable consent, not the information leading up to and including the consent capture.
John Moehrke (Sep 28 2018 at 12:35):
Did someone create a Change Request that includes the need to capture who captured the consent? I think the generic nature of .actor was less helpful than specific elements with specific use. So a CR that expresses these specific needs would be good.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
