FHIR Chat · Provider corrections · patient empowerment

Stream: patient empowerment

Topic: Provider corrections


view this post on Zulip John Moehrke (Dec 04 2020 at 18:00):

Today an inverted use-case came up. Where a patient has recorded information in their PHR, and given the Clinician access; WHEN the clinician notices a value that is clearly out of wack (e.g. looking at weight measurements and sees what must be the patients cat of 12 lbs), THEN the clinician might want to send a correction request to the patient in a way that the patient can understand specifically who/what/where/why the correction. --> I think this should NOT be pulled into scope, it is just a re-use in a different scope later when we have our solution.

view this post on Zulip Dave deBronkart (Dec 07 2020 at 17:13):

John Moehrke said:

Today an inverted use-case came up. Where a patient has recorded information in their PHR, and given the Clinician access; WHEN the clinician notices a value that is clearly out of wack (e.g. looking at weight measurements and sees what must be the patients cat of 12 lbs), THEN the clinician might want to send a correction request to the patient in a way that the patient can understand specifically who/what/where/why the correction. --> I think this should NOT be pulled into scope, it is just a re-use in a different scope later when we have our solution.

I love this because it spotlights the value of collaboration, aka participatory medicine!

Are there things we could/should do now, in our design of PATIENT requested corrections, that would simplify the mirror-image workflow someday?

view this post on Zulip Virginia Lorenzi (Dec 08 2020 at 03:59):

well @John Moehrke @Dave deBronkart thanks for hurting my brain. :) NIS1 (Not in Stage 1)

view this post on Zulip John Moehrke (Dec 08 2020 at 14:34):

I would caution to not expand the scope... just keep this near.

view this post on Zulip Dave deBronkart (Dec 08 2020 at 14:44):

John Moehrke said:

I would caution to not expand the scope... just keep this near.

I certainly agree! I was only suggesting that we keep it in mind in case some decision arose where it was just as easy to enable the reverse workflow someday, vs unthinkingly closing it off.


Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC