Stream: argonaut
Topic: scheduling / Issue #47 Whether updates or patch should be...
argo-scheduling-bot (Nov 08 2017 at 04:38):
Healthedata1 opened Issue #47
Incorporating coverage information into the workflow and when updating information as described here need to decide which option is best:
1. defer to future scope
1. use update as written
1. use patch interaction
argo-scheduling-bot (Nov 08 2017 at 04:38):
Healthedata1 labeled Issue #47
argo-scheduling-bot (Nov 08 2017 at 04:38):
Healthedata1 labeled Issue #47
argo-scheduling-bot (Nov 08 2017 at 19:34):
cooperthompson commented on Issue #47
In general, I've always struggled to understand when EHR systems would ever actually truly respect an update interaction, PATCH is technically probably the "true" solution. However...
That said, Coverage doesn't have many of the "hard" elements that make update really challenging (like Address). The only properties with tricky data types when doing an update interaction (CodeableConcept) are type and relationship.
Type is hard, because a reg system will never just update a coverage with new type. We'd error and ask for a new coverage. But because we'd error, maybe an update is fine, and if a type change is provided we'd just send back an OO.
Relationship is probably something we'd be willing to let a client update.
So at the end, I think I'm in favor of update.
argo-scheduling-bot (Dec 13 2017 at 20:13):
Healthedata1 commented on Issue #47
leave as is and see how work in piloting ( May not be implemented in time for Jan connectathon though)
argo-scheduling-bot (Mar 21 2018 at 18:11):
Healthedata1 closed Issue #47
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
