Stream: questionnaire
Topic: Modular questionnaires
Grahame Grieve (May 16 2019 at 23:05):
Do we have a way of indicating that specific answers to a question create the need for additional modules as separate questionnaires?
Lloyd McKenzie (May 16 2019 at 23:33):
You can have a question whose answer is a reference to another QuestionnaireResponse. That's really the only way to tie one QuestionnaireResponse to another.
Lloyd McKenzie (May 16 2019 at 23:33):
(And in that case, you can indicate what Questionnaire the response is expected to be answers to using an extension.)
Grahame Grieve (May 16 2019 at 23:38):
do we have a defined extension for this?
Grahame Grieve (May 16 2019 at 23:39):
(for the questionnaire definition)
Lloyd McKenzie (May 17 2019 at 00:04):
Hmm. We did. http://hl7.org/fhir/STU3/extension-questionnaire-lookupquestionnaire.html. But it somehow seems to have been lost in the move to R4 - and I can't find a tracker item that explains why. I've added a new one to get it back (GF#22355) - we can stick it in SDC for now, but it really belongs in core with the other 'reference' extensions
Grahame Grieve (May 17 2019 at 00:06):
I don't remember deleting it
Grahame Grieve (May 17 2019 at 00:07):
but I feel as though that extension is doing something else.
Grahame Grieve (May 17 2019 at 00:08):
so I have a questionnaire. it has a group. and the group has lots of a sub-questions - a whole set of them. and the group has an enable-when on it.
Grahame Grieve (May 17 2019 at 00:08):
but then I want to re-use the same group in a different questionnaire
Grahame Grieve (May 17 2019 at 00:08):
modular questionnaire. I don't see, from reading that extension definition, how it's allowing me to do that
Grahame Grieve (May 17 2019 at 00:10):
I feel like what I want is an extension that you put one an empty group item that says 'get your group content from over at this url'
Lloyd McKenzie (May 17 2019 at 01:33):
Where the intention would be that the target Questionnaire would never be filled out on its own? Yeah, we don't have anything like that.
Grahame Grieve (May 17 2019 at 01:35):
I'm not sure about the 'never filled out on it's own' - does that make a difference? either way, should SDC define something for this?
Lloyd McKenzie (May 17 2019 at 01:44):
We could. Submit a change request :)
Grahame Grieve (May 17 2019 at 01:54):
Brian Postlethwaite (May 20 2019 at 10:05):
This would then permit things like creating an address section to include elsewhere. Or have I missed something here?
Grahame Grieve (May 20 2019 at 10:37):
that'd be one outcome, yes
Simone Heckmann (May 23 2019 at 09:58):
I get this question regularly during trainings. There seems to be a demand for that functionality.
Stefan Lang (May 23 2019 at 10:02):
And we very probably need that functionality (conditional and also unconditional inclusion of "sub-questionnaires") for the German consent management IG.
Eric Haas (May 23 2019 at 14:06):
I’ve always wanted to go step further and make each item a resource. Lloyd has always made a convincing case against this. I don’t think this is that different from a modular questionnaire
Paul Lynch (May 23 2019 at 14:49):
@Eric Haas Although I am not sure why you would want to do that, I suppose if there were modular questionnaires, you could have a module with just one item.
Lloyd McKenzie (May 23 2019 at 14:50):
We'd need to be very cautious about this. Questions in a questionnaire often take up context from prior/higher-level questions. In a modular questionnaire, the context would need to be self-contained or somehow carefully managed.
Grahame Grieve (May 23 2019 at 20:16):
in general, if you were working with re-useable questions, you should be using Questionnaire.item.definition + logical model and thinking of them as re-useable data elements
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 14 2021 at 19:28):
At long last, the modular page is now in the CI-build - take a look here: http://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/sdc/modular.html
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
