Stream: australia
Topic: AU PD
Grahame Grieve (Jul 11 2018 at 05:55):
@Brett Esler @Brian Postlethwaite what's the relationship between FHIR AU PD IG and the VHDir IG?
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 11 2018 at 05:57):
These are meeting quite different needs at this point in time.
The AU PD IG is currently defining the profile for use in a federated directory for supporting Australian SMD messaging.
It does not cover any of the use cases around validation, restriction or verification.
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 11 2018 at 05:58):
The NHSD or the NHSR may cover that space in the future, and I would hope they look to that VhDir work as a start point.
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 11 2018 at 05:59):
The Au Base profile contains the core Australian identifiers which are inheritted into the AU PD IG.
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 11 2018 at 06:00):
The AU PD also includes how to cover the functionality that was formerly done using the ELS.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 11 2018 at 11:13):
@Philip Wilford need to check both then
Philip Wilford (Jul 12 2018 at 01:01):
Can you send me the link to the VH Dir IG FHIR website please ?
Brett Esler (Jul 12 2018 at 01:02):
@Brian Postlethwaite this is the CI yes ? http://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/VhDir/
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 12 2018 at 01:14):
Do remember that this is an R4 IG... (the VhDir one)
Brett Esler (Jul 12 2018 at 01:16):
i am also observing some interesting choices on some extensions and locations thereof...
Brett Esler (Jul 12 2018 at 01:22):
i am having a very bad feeling about certificates and access restrictions being directly related to Organization, Practitioner, PractitionerRole - certificates would seem to me need some relation to specific Endpoints (usage) and access to information controlled by consent and policy rather than built in (Contract, Consent)
Philip Wilford (Jul 12 2018 at 01:39):
G - I have scanned the VH Dir IG FHIR profile and we follow it to some extent but it mandates many fields which don't really map to the Australian landscape. There are many fields, like contact details, status's, modes etc ... which are also not relevant for NHSR. But it has been a useful exercise.
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 12 2018 at 01:42):
Your feedback will be very good on the VhDir guide, the next stage of its development will be to split the US only stuff out.
Philip Wilford (Jul 12 2018 at 02:23):
Hi Brian - how do you want the feedback? I can email it to you?
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 13 2018 at 00:45):
That's fine, or GForge trackers, or here on Zulip (in the Patient Administration WG stream)
Philip Wilford (Jul 16 2018 at 02:31):
Say a Practiitioner has multiple names and wants to use a different name depending on the PractitionerRole (ie use English name or Chinese name in difference clinics), how would you go about this?
Would you use the "display" name in the Reference field of the Resource in the PractitionerRole to say which one to use?
"Practtioner": {
"id": "71d21280-0ca4-96ea-632f-b054cf9b9333",
"reference": "Practtioner/71d21280-0ca4-96ea-632f-b054cf9b9333",
"display": "Dr John Doe"
}
and
"Practtioner": {
"id": "71d21280-0ca4-96ea-632f-b054cf9b9333",
"reference": "Practtioner/71d21280-0ca4-96ea-632f-b054cf9b9333",
"display": "Dr Jackie Chang"
}
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 16 2018 at 02:56):
Never considered that, but I guess that would be reasonable.
But would expect that would be something very difficult to maintain, and not likely to be supported in many systems.
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 16 2018 at 02:57):
You could however use translations if that was relevant, but think that's different to what you're thinking.
Philip Wilford (Jul 16 2018 at 03:26):
So how you would approach it?
One resource (Practiitioner) linked to another (PractitionerRole) and wanting to associate different names to each Role
Philip Wilford (Jul 16 2018 at 03:28):
and why would it be difficult to maintain? this is in reference to NHSR which would be the primary resource owner.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 16 2018 at 03:29):
I think that Brian is saying that this is a level of detail not usually collected - so why should NHSR do so?
Philip Wilford (Jul 16 2018 at 03:54):
Scenario: Dr wants to be known by different names at different clinics. Where would this information be stored? FHIR resource doesnt seem to be able to support this unless creating two Practitioner Resources, which goes against the "shared" resource model ?
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 16 2018 at 04:55):
Knowing how difficult the current level of information is to maintain, this does just seem out of reach, and especially if you want other systems to provide the content automatically.
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 16 2018 at 04:59):
Your suggestion of using the display value as different does technically work, but not sure how many systems would use that.
Ours would refactor back to the value in the practitioner (as it values consistency and helps ensure that the correct match has been made). report coming in through messaging for Dr Chang, but my practitioner resource has Dr Doe.
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 16 2018 at 05:00):
Other thought would be to use extensions on the name, and include multiple values in the name.
But the same issues above would also arise.
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 16 2018 at 05:01):
Then look to match back into what is listed with AHPRA too...
Brian Postlethwaite (Jul 16 2018 at 05:06):
Less of an issue with non regulated practitioners, but then less likely to have managed update systems to feed the content in.
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Jul 16 2018 at 05:40):
Another option is to put an extension on PractitionerRole to hold the name relevant to that role.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 16 2018 at 06:21):
this smells like a regulatory requirement - the sort of thing that well meaning people can get onto a mnadatory requirements list when they don't have to pay for it
Grahame Grieve (Jul 16 2018 at 06:21):
and you always have extensions on PractitionerRole
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
