Stream: europe
Topic: vaccination certificates
Christof Gessner (Jan 23 2021 at 13:48):
Opening a new topic for discussions on implementation of vaccination certificates for various purposes, nationally and internationally.
Also see corresponding discussions here:
https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179166-implementers/topic/COVID.20Immunization.20IG
Christof Gessner (Jan 23 2021 at 14:09):
At next week's WGM, the Public Health WG has an Immunizations session scheduled for Friday Q2 if this topics needs some discussion.
https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179166-implementers/topic/COVID.20Immunization.20IG/near/223428414
Christof Gessner (Jan 23 2021 at 14:16):
@Giorgio Cangioli @Jose Costa Teixeira @Jens Villadsen @Hynek Kružík @Hendrik Jablonski @Simone Heckmann @dr Kai U. Heitmann @Andreas Grode @Oliver Egger @Roeland Luykx
Kevin Mayfield (Jan 24 2021 at 07:33):
Are you referring to an EU Vaccination certificate? Do you have any details.
In England-UK were close to vaccination and test result being a national FHIR API but i would expect the patient 'certificates' to be app and paper based.
Christof Gessner (Jan 24 2021 at 11:19):
I am referring to sharing experience on vaccination-related data exchange in Europe. To enable co-ordinated approaches towards (or against) international solutions, that are currently discussed in the media.
Christof Gessner (Jan 24 2021 at 11:22):
@Kevin Mayfield Any references to the national FHIR API for vaccinations and tests?
Jens Villadsen (Jan 24 2021 at 14:06):
@Kevin Mayfield I would be interested in this as well (@Thor Schliemann you might also would like to follow this)
Kevin Mayfield (Jan 24 2021 at 14:06):
Have tests examples here https://simplifier.net/pathology/1234567 not a lot at the moment but hoping to add more over the next week
Giorgio Cangioli (Jan 24 2021 at 18:17):
Thanks @Kevin Mayfield for sharing the example.
For my better understanding, what is the information that is intended to be conveyed ?
Giorgio Cangioli (Jan 24 2021 at 18:19):
It seems to be a lab test result, but in this case I'd expect to find the type of exam performed in the code (e.g. in LOINC one of the following concepts) and the actual result in the value.
Giorgio Cangioli (Jan 24 2021 at 18:33):
or the intent was to say covid-2019 was detected (but I don't care how)
Kevin Mayfield (Jan 25 2021 at 06:30):
My understanding is positive test results will be sent to primary care provider, this api will allow querying for test results.
Kevin Mayfield (Jan 25 2021 at 06:49):
@Giorgio Cangioli I was after putting in a snomed/loinc covid screening/test result code into code and then the result in the value.
Have been checking loinc, snomed and logica covid ig and not found anything suitable.
Kevin Mayfield (Jan 25 2021 at 06:58):
That seems to better match the user requirements which would be
Have you been tested for covid 19? Answer Observations
Have you been vaccinated for covid 19? Answer Immunizations.
Kevin Mayfield (Jan 25 2021 at 07:02):
So I agree, the result should be a value from this valueset https://simplifier.net/pathology/covid-19-detection-result-vs but what is the code for 'covid19 detection result'
Kevin Mayfield (Jan 25 2021 at 07:08):
This is representative of our dataset https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/non-lab-based-covid19-test-reporting.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjX69WTwrbuAhVywuYKHZowDmsQFjAJegQIDBAB&usg=AOvVaw1_3ZJqzChN5ifmGMBYNL5O
Kevin Mayfield (Jan 25 2021 at 07:17):
Also we have this valueset for tests https://simplifier.net/pathology/covid-19-snomed-test-vs I'm considering diagnostic report for these codes.
I could put the test code in observation but I think this should be a simple query on one code (covid screen result) as this is closer to use case. (Which is simple and detail can be retrieved if required)
Kevin Mayfield (Jan 25 2021 at 07:35):
Vaccinations: our standards are based on fhir document and fhir message both STU3 https://fhir.nhs.uk/STU3/StructureDefinition/CareConnect-ITK-DM-Immunization-Composition-1
Intent is to move to a single message standard, expect this will be supplemented with a R4 query Api.
Kevin Mayfield (Jan 25 2021 at 07:36):
(If wanted I can dig out covid vaccination examples)
Kevin Mayfield (Jan 25 2021 at 08:41):
Sorry, I think I may have gone off topic but am I correct in thinking we have three Europe wide use cases:
- Citizen covid19 test results
- Citizen covid19 vaccination status
- Citizen covid19 immunity (vaccination exemption)
Any of those three helps get a citizen safely moving within the EU and/or crossing borders. This brings in certification.
Christof Gessner (Jan 25 2021 at 08:46):
In my view, those three are variants of the use case "prove status". A different other use case is "document vaccination" (like in IIS or a patient's vaccination passport).
Christof Gessner (Jan 29 2021 at 20:40):
Hint: also see recent chats on https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179166-implementers/topic/Immunization.20status
Simone Heckmann (Feb 15 2021 at 10:48):
@Maximilian Reith
Giorgio Cangioli (Feb 16 2021 at 08:02):
I posted a new question about this topic if you are interested in.. https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179166-implementers/topic/Clarification.20on.20immunizationRecommendation.20recommendations (@Christof Gessner ; @Jose Costa Teixeira ; @Jens Villadsen )
Kevin Mayfield (Feb 24 2021 at 10:48):
FYI. It's mentioned above but UK approach does appear to be going down the app certification route.
Peter Jordan (Feb 24 2021 at 18:20):
Nothing would encourage Brits to get vaccinated more than making it a pre-condition for entering pubs! :stuck_out_tongue_wink:
Kevin Mayfield (Feb 25 2021 at 08:54):
I'll have to make that point..... how do we increase FHIR adoption, make it mandatory requirement for getting into the pub (via NHSApp)
How do we get OAuth2 UMA introduced, make it mandatory requirement for getting into the pub (via NHSApp)
Looks like a winner.
Fredrik Lindén (Feb 25 2021 at 17:05):
While I like the practical approach (of the Pubs) the standards used are not good enough. Work with Goodhealthpass.org to create the blueprint for the future of health and care data.
Jens Villadsen (Feb 28 2021 at 13:38):
What are people putting into their QR codes - given that QR codes are used as medium for sharing the COVID status? Protobuf? Links? Zipped json?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Feb 28 2021 at 14:50):
Depends on the usage, no? As long as it's not unencrypted medical data (I don't have experience with it but I think whatever is in the QR code must require some level of access control. Can be a (encrypted, zipped) json or other format, but link seems better.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Feb 28 2021 at 14:53):
is the QR code for online usage only? A link might work.. but perhaps should be a link (and some content, in case the remote server is not accessible - this way you can leave the airport even if the internet is down).
Jose Costa Teixeira (Feb 28 2021 at 14:57):
These are some thoughts from a previous development, I have no experience here. For compression, https://github.com/antirez/smaz
Jens Villadsen (Feb 28 2021 at 16:09):
@Jose Costa Teixeira I've done some experiments on my own as well as talked to the guys behind https://github.com/minvws/nl-eHealth-experimental . As I see it, the primary use case for using QR codes involves a minimum of data that is signed and embedded into the QR code. That makes it possible to have offline validation and only exposing the minimum dataset that is contained within the QR code. Embedding links into the code does not look like the right way to go, IMHO.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Feb 28 2021 at 16:58):
Agree on minimum data set. What if you want to say "and here is the evidence"? (as in: "if you think this code was falsified, you can find it online")
Jens Villadsen (Feb 28 2021 at 16:59):
The evidence lies in the signature. Only a trusted site could ever sign the content of the QR code
Jose Costa Teixeira (Feb 28 2021 at 17:01):
will you aim for a small-ish qr code, or like one of those codes that you have in the german rail?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Feb 28 2021 at 17:02):
I'm wondering how to address falsification, and expiration. Just because something was valid last month, may not be valid anymore.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Feb 28 2021 at 17:09):
(my scope was for professional credentials, so different scope and different requirements)
Jens Villadsen (Feb 28 2021 at 17:13):
as small as possible. The cryptographic signature is the only one that can be trusted, as it is by far the hardest one to fake
Jens Villadsen (Feb 28 2021 at 18:22):
@Jose Costa Teixeira also, restrict the lifespan of the QR to days or weeks in order to make it even harder to falsify.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Feb 28 2021 at 18:23):
seems good idea. (as long as the date cannot be falsified itself :smiling_devil: )
Jens Villadsen (Feb 28 2021 at 19:28):
the date is part of the signed data. If that is faked, the entire dataset is faked
Jens Villadsen (Feb 28 2021 at 19:30):
Regarding the QR code size, I don't believe that something under version 16 is going to work
Kevin Mayfield (Mar 01 2021 at 06:15):
Does this problem need to be broken down into layers? I listened to the Hl7 Europe presentation last week and it appeared we have at least two.
App layer (country) - consent is controlled by citizen who decides whether to show proof or not. The App in several cases is using FHIR Restful probably including FHIR Patient, Observation and Immunisation.
Certificate layer (Europe) - Sounds like it's going to be CDA.
CDA/certificate layer is going to take longer to define but we can start using the FHIR layer to start defining, aligning and implementing the data model?
Giorgio Cangioli (Mar 01 2021 at 07:54):
Kevin Mayfield said:
Certificate layer (Europe) - Sounds like it's going to be CDA.
CDA/certificate layer is going to take longer to define but we can start using the FHIR layer to start defining, aligning and implementing the data model?
Hi Kevin, the only technical specifications and proof of concepts I'm aware of at the Eu level are FHIR specs (link below); I haven't seen any specification activity in eHDSI concerning the CDA part.
I was thinking - free time permitting - to make also a proof of concept CDA representation in Art Decor, as I did for the FHIR part (https://github.com/gcangioli/vaccineCertificate) [this is a temporary link, the guide will be moved sooner or later to a non-personal repository]
Giorgio Cangioli (Mar 01 2021 at 08:03):
We were talking last Friday with @Jose Costa Teixeira and @Michael Tan about the idea of collecting and sharing the data set that each country is using for vaccinations / vaccination certificate. The option we were discussing was to have them published as FHIR logical models, so that each country can compare and learn form the others. This could also help in identifying gaps with the EU and/or WHO data sets/implementations.
Do you see this as a feasible / useful task ?
Kevin Mayfield (Mar 01 2021 at 08:26):
I think so. I'm hoping the compare the German and English models for imms - which is making me think the base models will be easier to compare as FHIR.
Jens Villadsen (Mar 01 2021 at 09:46):
If data is to be serialized into a QR code - CDA is not going to be the format that will be embedded. It's way to verbose and carries too much dead-weight
Christof Gessner (Mar 01 2021 at 17:57):
For the medical certificates (not for QR) CDA may be a viable option on a European level, because we have tooling and skills in place for CDA-based patient summaries.
Frank Oemig (Mar 02 2021 at 05:57):
But why would you go for CDA? FHIR is simpler and less overweight for this task.
I am in favor of base models expressed as UML. That is the only way to go for checking interoperability - except the model is hierarchic. Then we could use logical models instead.
In a FHIR Bundle-Composition, what is used to be signed? Composition.text?
PS: The German Vaccination Passport FHIR MIO is not conformant to the EU January 27 guideline. So it would be good to have a European base IG from which the national ones can be derived. I'm afraid this is too late so that the different national IGs may be conformant to the guideline, but incompatible to each other... (I do not use the compatibility definition which allows for conversions.)
Kevin Mayfield (Mar 02 2021 at 08:06):
Does any other country have Test Results profiles?
What I'm after is which LOINC (or SNOMED) codes are being used for Observation.code.
I'm currently using 871562009 Detection of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (observable entity)
with a SNOMED based value CodeableConcepts.
I'm hoping I can get Englands results profile published this week and if I can add in some external support?
Giorgio Cangioli (Mar 02 2021 at 08:38):
Frank Oemig said:
But why would you go for CDA? FHIR is simpler and less overweight for this task.
+1
Giorgio Cangioli (Mar 02 2021 at 08:48):
Frank Oemig said:
I am in favor of base models expressed as UML. That is the only way to go for checking interoperability - except the model is hierarchic. Then we could use logical models instead.
I believe that it is important to have implementation independent models, the choice of their formalization depends on the usage.
I was thinking to FHIR LM because it would be easier to keep the traceability between implementation-independent and implementation-specific (FHIR profiles, CDA templates) models.
In all the cases I used them, they worked properly... but this is another thread :-)
Frank Oemig (Mar 02 2021 at 09:17):
LMs work as long as your are with hierarchic structures. So it works for simple forms.
If you are referring to complex relationships beyond reporting, what medical information normally is, one should use a technology independent representation.
Christof Gessner (Mar 02 2021 at 10:56):
Giorgio Cangioli said:
Frank Oemig said:
But why would you go for CDA? FHIR is simpler and less overweight for this task.
+1
All I am saying is: We have a valid CDA PS IG that is currently implemented by a larger number of EU member states participating in the eHDSI: https://art-decor.ehdsi.eu/html/publication/epSOS/epsos-html-20201215T191920/tmp-1.3.6.1.4.1.12559.11.10.1.3.1.1.3-2020-04-14T130347.html
An immunization section is part of this IG:
https://art-decor.ehdsi.eu/html/publication/epSOS/epsos-html-20201215T191920/tmp-1.3.6.1.4.1.19376.1.5.3.1.3.23-2020-04-16T121830.html
Test tools and transport infrastructure is in place. And - maybe most important - skills and maintenance capacity in place on both, EU level and in the member states.
So if you want to be quick, this might be a viable option.
Jens Villadsen (Mar 02 2021 at 10:59):
@Christof Gessner which member states are you referring to, that supports those CDA profiles?
Christof Gessner (Mar 02 2021 at 11:03):
Here is an overview: https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/EHOPERATIONS/eHDSI+STARTING+TOOLKIT
Jens Villadsen (Mar 02 2021 at 11:12):
While we're at it - it seems that the code set does not yet cover COVID: https://art-decor.ehdsi.eu/html/publication/epSOS/epsos-html-20201215T191920/voc-1.3.6.1.4.1.12559.11.10.1.3.1.42.28-2020-06-17T114920.html
Christof Gessner (Mar 02 2021 at 11:20):
eHDSI value set for vaccines is being updated for the upcoming release, see the change process here: https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/EHOPERATIONS/CP-eHealthDSI-052%3A+Covid-19+Hotfix+for+new+ICD-10+and+Vaccine+codes
Note that there is also a clause in that change proposal to enable automatic uptake of future new codes, without the need to go through the formal change process.
Christian Jonigkeit (Mar 02 2021 at 11:26):
Seems like the change merely adds a "optional code is intended to be used when a person who may or may not be
sick encounters health services for the specific purpose of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine", which is not to be confused with the completed activity/observation of having received a COVID-19 vaccine
Christian Jonigkeit (Mar 02 2021 at 11:29):
Specifically you want to include ICD10 procedure codes, e.g. https://www.icd10monitor.com/cms-releases-new-icd-10-pcs-codes-for-covid-19
Christian Jonigkeit (Mar 02 2021 at 11:31):
Not sure whether these have be made outside of the CMS/US
Christof Gessner (Mar 02 2021 at 11:32):
ICD-10-PCS is not widely used in Europe, so it is currently not used in cross-border specifications.
Peter Jordan (Mar 02 2021 at 20:55):
Thanks @Christof Gessner , from that document...
In the eHDSIVaccine Value Set (OID 1.3.6.1.4.1.12559.11.10.1.3.1.42.28), the new ATC codes and two SNOMED CT concepts pre-released to represent vaccine products against SARS-CoV-2...
J07BX03 ‘covid-19 vaccines’
1119305005 ‘Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antigen only vaccine product’
1119349007 ‘Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 mRNA only vaccine product’
Those 2 SNOMED CT concepts were released in the 20210131 version of the International Edition and have been added to the Global Patient Set used in IPS.
Jens Villadsen (Mar 17 2021 at 14:14):
FYI: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1181
Jens Villadsen (Mar 17 2021 at 14:30):
@Konstantin Hyppönen would this document describe the current state of the common EU standard: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/ehealth/docs/trust-framework_interoperability_certificates_en.pdf
Christof Gessner (Mar 17 2021 at 14:56):
a few other documents here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans/covid-19-digital-green-certificates_en
Kevin Mayfield (Mar 17 2021 at 20:52):
Has any country produced an IG which contain Immunization? (I think possibly Germany, Poland or Belgium)
I want to check the UK-England initial version and the use of vaccineCode
@Ian McNicoll did you work on this?
Kevin Mayfield (Mar 17 2021 at 21:19):
Looking at US profiles they seem to be using category codes for Immunization.vaccineCode
in the UK we are using drug product codes?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 17 2021 at 21:41):
in Belgium we identified that as a possible ambiguity, and we didn't want that. So we separated the disease(s) - e.g MMR from the product.
Peter Jordan (Mar 17 2021 at 22:15):
A collection of COVID-19 Vaccine Codes from around the world...additional contributions welcome!
https://terminz.azurewebsites.net/fhir/ValueSet/covid-19-vaccines/$expand
Kevin Mayfield (Mar 18 2021 at 07:05):
Thanks the expansion contains the (SNOMED) codes I have in examples.
Frank Oemig (Mar 18 2021 at 07:18):
In Germany we have a specification for the vaccination Passport. In reality it contains just the documentation for a single immunization. Unfortunately, this spec is not conformant to the EU guidelines because of forbidden elements.
Frank Oemig (Mar 18 2021 at 07:19):
In other words, to establish a conformant and interoperable specification, and to allow for this forbidden element, a complete new version must be released.
Kevin Mayfield (Mar 18 2021 at 07:54):
This is a GB-England work in progress example
https://simplifier.net/guide/NHSDigitalCOVID19/vaccination-covid19
The API we are using for our app is likely to be like http://hapi.fhir.org/baseR4/Immunization?patient.identifier=https://fhir.nhs.uk/Id/nhs-number|9987123456
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 18 2021 at 12:07):
IHE Pharmacy is going to publish a vaccination profile, perhaps that helps countries take the interesting bits.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 18 2021 at 12:07):
Not COVID-19-specific, because whatever we do for COVID-19 has to work for COVID-21, right?
Peter Jordan (Mar 18 2021 at 19:33):
Interesting description for the Vaccine Code...
39114911000001105 |Talent 0.5ml dose solution for injection multidose vials (Secretary of State for Health)|
Is that an FSN or synonym and what is Matt Hancock's relationship to the Vaccine? :)
Kevin Mayfield (Mar 18 2021 at 20:43):
I'm hoping that's test data error
Kevin Mayfield (Mar 18 2021 at 20:53):
I did double check .... its not the real description :)
Kevin Mayfield (Mar 20 2021 at 07:40):
Found out is was a code name and specs hadn't been updated to correct name.
Updated UK Example
http://hapi.fhir.org/baseR4/Immunization?patient.identifier=https://fhir.nhs.uk/Id/nhs-number%7C9912003888&_include=*
Jens Villadsen (Mar 20 2021 at 10:13):
Peter Jordan (Mar 20 2021 at 20:48):
Key highlights, from an HL7 perspective...
• HL7 FHIR R4 has been decided upon as the health data standard for expressing the SVC core data set.
• The HL7 FHIR International Patient Summary (IPS) Implementation Guide (IG) has been chosen as the “reference” data model for the SVC IG, with profiling as necessary to support the cardinality and coding decisions related to the SVC core data set.
Jens Villadsen (Mar 24 2021 at 23:32):
https://ec.europa.eu/health/ehealth/covid-19_en
Jens Villadsen (Mar 24 2021 at 23:34):
has anyone mapped the "Certificates for test results" (https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/preparedness_response/docs/covid-19_rat_common-list_en.pdf) - to either eg. IPS or stripped the contents to a downsized version fit for purpose in a QR code
Jens Villadsen (Mar 24 2021 at 23:52):
are anyone considering fhir serialized as protobuf?
Jens Villadsen (Mar 24 2021 at 23:54):
@Giorgio Cangioli do you have an example of a COVID test result expresed in terms of IPS?
Giorgio Cangioli (Mar 25 2021 at 07:18):
@Jens Villadsen COVID test results have been considered (see https://build.fhir.org/ig/hl7-eu/dgc/) but no examples have been created yet
Giorgio Cangioli (Mar 25 2021 at 07:20):
..it is still a work-in-progress..
Jens Villadsen (Mar 25 2021 at 07:24):
ETA
?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 25 2021 at 07:41):
I don't know if it is relevant, but we have a small project in Belgium to do a quick capture of rapid COVID tests.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 25 2021 at 07:41):
the idea is: do the test, fill an online form (questionnaire), ideally scanning the barcode of the device, and you're done
Jens Villadsen (Mar 25 2021 at 10:27):
@Roman Radomski would you care to share the information on the serialization model of your QR codes for the vaccine passport
Jens Villadsen (Mar 25 2021 at 10:30):
the same question goes for other EU parties-people
Kevin Mayfield (Mar 25 2021 at 11:25):
Irony..... guess which country is looking likely to conform :) (well, not far off)
Jens Villadsen (Mar 25 2021 at 14:02):
Are there any czech/estonian guys on the line? I've heard that they already have a working certificate with QR codes
Christof Gessner (Mar 25 2021 at 14:19):
@Hynek Kružík
Frank Oemig (Mar 25 2021 at 15:12):
What's in the QR code to allow for cross country certification that also works offline?
Christof Gessner (Mar 25 2021 at 15:30):
As described in https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/ehealth/docs/trust-framework_interoperability_certificates_en.pdf (quoted above). More technical details currently under construction.
Jens Villadsen (Mar 25 2021 at 20:12):
good overview in this: https://github.com/minvws/nl-eHealth-experimental/blob/gaby/fhir_mapping/examples/EUVAC/Annex%201%20-%20Vacc%20Min%20Data%20Set%20-%20Disclosure%20Levels.pdf
Christof Gessner (Mar 26 2021 at 12:52):
We are planning to set up a FHIR test server that should be able to deliver example data. Also related to https://build.fhir.org/ig/hl7-eu/dgc/index.html
Roman Radomski (Mar 26 2021 at 12:56):
Jens Villadsen said:
Roman Radomski would you care to share the information on the serialization model of your QR codes for the vaccine passport
Hi Jens, I'm not sure if I understand your question. I din'd know that there is more that one "QR code serialization model..." (?) I'll try to ask the right people and come back with more info. The only thing I know by myself, is that they use base64 coding for all data contained in QR code.
Christof Gessner (Mar 26 2021 at 13:03):
@Roman Radomski , due to size limitations, additional steps are needed to "compress" the data, including stripping some information from a potential input data structure (such as FHIR e. g.). Things like base45, CBOR, COSE are evaluated for such processing.
Roman Radomski (Mar 26 2021 at 13:47):
@Jens Villadsen @Christof Gessner Thanks for clarification, Christof! As far, as I know the Polish solution is base64 data coding, no compression, QR code for presentation (not Aztec code).
Jens Villadsen (Mar 26 2021 at 13:49):
Jens Villadsen (Mar 26 2021 at 14:07):
John Moehrke (Mar 26 2021 at 14:36):
I think this is also the intent of the HL7 vaccine credential project
Kevin Mayfield (Apr 01 2021 at 08:37):
I'd like to test/validate UK/England work against EU spec, do we have a url for the NPM package? (I've tried using just the package name and version with HAPI ). I've been using simplifier packages ok e.g. https://packages.simplifier.net/uk.nhsdigital.r4/-/uk.nhsdigital.r4-2.0.14-dev.tgz
Kevin Mayfield (Apr 01 2021 at 08:37):
^That contains England version of COVID Observation and Immunisation.
Jens Villadsen (Apr 12 2021 at 21:01):
lets roll! -> https://github.com/ehn-digital-green-development
Kevin Mayfield (May 17 2021 at 13:42):
Hmmm. England seems to have gone live with the EU-Immunization profile
(target-disease, vaccine (product) not same as UK definitions)
https://twitter.com/KevinGMayfield/status/1394282064103542784?s=20
QR code version is now live in nhs app. Does this include covid test results? (Not had any, so can’t check). https://twitter.com/KevinGMayfield/status/1394282064103542784/photo/1
- Kev Mayfield (@KevinGMayfield) Isaac Vetter (May 18 2021 at 16:55):
Hey Friends, in case you hadn't seen it, the "SMART Health Cards" vaccination credential specification (http://build.fhir.org/ig/dvci/vaccine-credential-ig/branches/main/ and https://smarthealth.cards/) has a zulip stream, a connectathon track now! and the FHIR profiles are being balloted in HL7 this fall as Universal Realm.
Isaac Vetter (May 18 2021 at 16:56):
My understanding is that the specs' coordinators are seeking "adequacy status" (or something like that) from the EU DGC specification authors as an official determination that it can be appropriate to convert between SMART Health Cards and DGCs.
Isaac Vetter (May 18 2021 at 17:45):
... and the IPS track is discussing during a connectathon session today! https://whova.com/portal/webapp/hlsfh_202105/Agenda/1687602
Max Masnick (May 18 2021 at 17:47):
:wave: Hello! I'm one of the authors of the SMART Health Cards Vaccination and Testing IG. It would be great to chat at some point!
Giorgio Cangioli (May 18 2021 at 18:04):
Hi @Max Masnick as you know the initiatives on vaccination certificate are several. :-)
National, regional (e.g. Europe) and also global initiatives (e.g. WHO SVC)
Giorgio Cangioli (May 18 2021 at 18:07):
I believe that we should clearly distinguish between the technical means used to verify the certificates and the FHIR content used for documenting the vaccinations/lab test/recovery
Giorgio Cangioli (May 18 2021 at 18:08):
I hope we can work to harmonize as possible that part taking in account the different needs and expectations
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
