Stream: implementers
Topic: scheduling workflow
Drew Torres (Nov 03 2016 at 20:04):
We are working on working through scheduling workflow via FHIR to support app developers to support patient self-scheduling. We seem to have found a need to have multiple actors on a schedule. We believe that a schedule should be constrained to a combination of resources rather than individual actors. An example, an app developer queries schedule by type, let’s say the type is surgery, there are potentially 4 schedules returned: location A, location B, provider A, and provider B. Everything has availabilities from 9-10, but provider A only practices at location A and provider B only practices at location B. A consumer doesn’t know how to marry those 2 pieces of information together. As we though through it, we felt loosening the cardinality on actor on schedule would give the consumer more context on how to schedule an appointment. Thoughts on the above problem? Does practitioner role become part of scheduling workflows? We noticed practitioner role has the ability convey available day/time.
Brian Postlethwaite (Nov 04 2016 at 02:40):
1. Your thoughts are all correct here.
Brian Postlethwaite (Nov 04 2016 at 02:43):
But extending on this, the complexity as you have described it exactly exists. What needs to be decided is where the complexity is moved to.
It could be quite reasonable that from an external perspective the schedule could be distilled into the healthcare service layer and not expose the practitioners view. (merging all the internal schedules into an external view of availability that can be used.)
Where the same system may internall have the complete picture exposing the complete picture for the practitioner themselves, or just at a specific location.
Brian Postlethwaite (Nov 04 2016 at 02:43):
Guidance on all this is what is to be built out in the Scheduling project that has recently started which may go through the HSSP OMG process
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
