Stream: Da Vinci CRD
Topic: CDS Cards vs. System Actions for CRD
Joseph Sadlon (Jul 27 2021 at 15:46):
In our EHR we would like to save the service response of prior auth required or not required directly on our order and have this information persist with the order. With the current CRD specifications the prior auth determination should be populated within a card. However, CDS cards are not always order specific and are not intended to persist. Therefore, has there been any thought of populating the prior auth determination in a system action so it can be automatically populated on an order and persisted on an order?
We would still think options such as a link to a SMART on FHIR app should be in a CDS card.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 27 2021 at 17:08):
The next release of CRD will be dealing with some of the considerations about processing multiple orders simultaneously, including associating a card with a specific order. That would then allow you to persist the card with a direct linkage to the order it was returned for. Note that it's possible that one card might apply to multiple orders. Feel free to submit a change request detailing specifics of what you'd like to see.
Joseph Sadlon (Sep 08 2021 at 14:51):
@Lloyd McKenzie does this mean that currently we should be processing one order at a time for CRD? At least until CRD has the next release which deals with multiple orders at a time?
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 08 2021 at 15:04):
CRD supports multiple actions now. The main changes coming are guidance that cards that are specifically related to a single order somehow indicate that to an order. For example, a card that simply says "No prior authorization needed" when there are three orders in development isn't that helpful because it's not clear whether the statement applies to all the orders or a single order (and if only one, which one). The next release will also include an expectation that implementers support a card action which updates an order to add a note about prior authorization (e.g. an assertion that none is needed, a prior authorization number if one was pre-emptively provided, etc.) so that information returned that should be persisted with an order will be.
Joseph Sadlon (Sep 08 2021 at 19:05):
This is great news @Lloyd McKenzie since this is helping manage many of the issues we are facing. Do you know when this release will be coming out? Or if we can review the draft?
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 08 2021 at 19:36):
The first draft of the 'annotate' card type is now in the CI- build. We discussed it on our call today and there's some related discussion happening on the CDS Hooks stream here: https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179159-cds-hooks/topic/support.20for.20'patch'.3F
The intention is to have all of the proposed changes in the spec by mid-October so that the reference implementation and early adopters can try it out and be ready to test at the Da Vinci November connectathon (still in planning, not yet official). If that goes well, then we'd hope to ballot in Jan.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
