Created by Brian Postlethwaite on 31 Aug, 2016

Date

Attendees

Apologies

  • (none)

Agenda

  • Approve previous meetings minutes

  • Review the flyer/page for the process/guidance to get buy-in from other Organisations to contribute/get involved as they need to, and bring in work

  • Brainstorm discussion on possible needs - Admissions (patient/encounter), Directory data (organizations, locations & practitioners) - (For future call)

  • FHIR Profile location update
  • Use of the IHI in the display name of the Identifiers for Patient (acronym or spell it out)
  • Continue review of existing Patient FHIR Profile draft
    • Medicare Number
    • Commonwealth seniors card
    • DVA number (with/without colour)
    • healthcare card
    • pension concession card
    • Indigenous status
  • Review existing Provider FHIR Profile draft 
    • HPI-I
    • Provider number
    • Prescriber number
  • Review existing Organization FHIR Profile draft
    • HPI-O

Notes

Publicised the new location of the profile formal artifacts at http://fhir.hl7.org.au/fhir/base/

Noted the usage of IHI identifiers in Australia, various sections of health have different penetration of use.

Reasonably good coverage in Primary Care, however in hospital PAS systems the coverage is not as good, and some systems are not capable of storing this information. Other Identifiers such as MRNs and the Medicare number are in far wider usage.

IHI as text label to remain as is for now as was agreed some time ago with around 8 people, however Stephen Royce suggests that potentially we should consider changing this to be more descriptive than just the "IHI". Once the base patient profile is published this will then be balloted as a potential change (via Jira?).

(Angus Millar) Who's contact details should be in the codesystem/valueset/structure definition resources?

This is likely to be the details of the person/organization that was responsible for defining and managing the content. In the case of the IHI, then the appropriate organization would be ADHA. Otherwise an HL7 au contact could be created to cover those that don't fall elsewhere (and content is curated by HL7 au)

Would prefer to only have 1 organization's contact detail in there (rather than multiple e.g. The agency and HL7au) Can put in multiple types (e.g. web/email/phone)

Discussion on the canonical URIs for the conformance resources was discussed and the following concerns were identified (using code system as example)

  • Versioning of content (of the codesystem)
  • Version of the FHIR infrastructure
  • Should the canonical URI be resolvable
  • Should it resolve to a FHIR resource
  • Should the version number appear in the URI

Stephen Royce referenced http://hl7.org/fhir/resource.html#versions

Should systems not conform to the valueset/codesystem then versioning issues could become apparent.

Next meeting is to be on the 14th September

  • Discussion on other Identifiers should be in the profile?

Action items

  • Eric Browne to provide a shortlist of identifiers that could be considered as examples for discussion.

  •