Stream: argonaut
Topic: ValueSet Bindings on PractitionerRole.specialty and code
Saul Kravitz (Apr 22 2021 at 17:42):
Hi @Eric Haas and @Brett Marquard ,
Happy that the issues with PractitionerRole practitioner and organization have been resolved (http://jira.hl7.org/browse/FHIR-29680). I'm curious whether the issues that we (Saul + @Gail Kocher ) have raised with the value set bindings for PractitionerRole.code and specialty are queued up for discussion? The proposal is for USCore to use a superset of the VSs defined for these fields in Plan-Net (so that Plan-Net could profile USCore).
As @Gail Kocher has pointed out, the VS for code (currently using NUCC Provider Taxonomy) is inappropriate, and the VS for specialty is overly broad (which doesn't bother Plan-Net, which uses a NUCC Provider Taxonomy subset).
I couldn't find one, but if I need to create a tracker, I'm happy to do it.
Thx, Saul
@Sean Mahoney @Robert Dieterle @Dave Hill
Brett Marquard (Apr 22 2021 at 18:54):
Please create tracker with your proposed value set
Saul Kravitz (Apr 27 2021 at 15:37):
https://jira.hl7.org/browse/FHIR-31997
@Brett Marquard @Gail Kocher
Brett Marquard (Apr 29 2021 at 15:40):
Structured Documents spent 20 mins discussing the existing plan net value set two questions:
- Did you consider adding these roles to http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/practitioner-role?
- I suspect you reviewed and rejected SNOMED. How did you decide to reject SNOMED?
@Saul Kravitz @Gay Dolin @Gail Kocher @Robert McClure @Lisa Nelson
Brett Marquard (Apr 29 2021 at 15:52):
adding @Lloyd McKenzie and @Jean Duteau as an FYI
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 29 2021 at 16:02):
@Mark Scrimshire
Gail Kocher (May 10 2021 at 21:08):
@Brett Marquard sorry for the delay - i have issues with getting into Zulip a lot (my network not the tool)
Did you consider adding these roles to http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/practitioner-role?
There are only six codes in this code system, three of which are not healthcare practitioner types that US health plans contract with. Of the remaining three two are too broadly defined in the code system for how the terms are used within US healthcare, i.e. doctor and nurse. A doctor is not "a qualified/registered medical professional". Examples such as a social worker or physician assistant are qualified/registered medical professionals but within the US, their licensure would prevent using the term 'doctor' to describe their role.
I suspect you reviewed and rejected SNOMED. How did you decide to reject SNOMED?
The SNOMED list is a conglomeration of provider types and provider specialties and care team roles. Care team roles are not what health plans contract/credential providers for, rather they are credentialed for the type of provider and then for specific specialty(ies). The specialty is conveyed in PractitionerRole.specialty not PractitionerRole.code.
Therefore we developed a value set of provider types, aka roles only.
Brett Marquard (May 11 2021 at 09:07):
Thank you Gail -- when looking at this briefly again, it seems these 'roles only' would be useful to other HL7 guides, and there would be benefit to a universal set of concepts to support in the base FHIR spec.
Saul Kravitz (May 11 2021 at 18:53):
Hi @Brett Marquard -- can you expand on your comment to https://jira.hl7.org/browse/FHIR-31997 ? "Will consider in future ballot of US Core." When is the earliest that the proposed VS changes might be incorporated in USCore, and the Plan-Net profile of PractitionerRole could be based on USCore? Thanks!
Brett Marquard (May 11 2021 at 18:57):
The next planned ballot is Dec 2021. It would be great to get the Plan-Net set rolled into something HL7 Terminology/HTA manages.
Saul Kravitz (May 12 2021 at 20:10):
@Sean Mahoney @Dave Hill
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
