Hi Joanie,

That is a good question and probably something to clarify as the name of the fields will be different based on the system or vendor. Off the top of my head we have 4 'core' elements that contribute to our raw system data:
1. Encounter Type
2. Visit Type
3. Reason for Visit
4. Visit Diagnosis

I think these could directly line up with Encounter.type, Encounter.serviceType, Encounter.reasonCode, Encounter.diagnosis. OR it is possible that the encounter type in the FHIR profile should be coming from an embedded data element that is automatically determined through system functionality. There seems to be a bit of grey between the distinction of encounter type versus service type, so I was hoping to hear what others may have done to help me out a bit!

Would it be reasonable to set up a chat and we can talk it through?

Thanks
Debbie

Hi Debbie,

Could you clarify what you mean by visit type?
Is it the type of service being delivered during the visit (diabetes screening), or the manner in which the visit is being conducted (virtual, in-person)?

We might not have anything to contribute at this time but both of these concepts are being investigated at the Pan-Canadian level in order to standardize the terminology. We are also interested in learning more about pan-Canadian uses cases.

Best regards,
Joanie Harper

Wondering if any CIS/HIS/EHR systems have looked at standardizing the Visit Types in their system yet? I have looked at the valueset noted in the Canadian Baseline FHIR profile (Encounter) and would like to know what other organizations have done! We have found that there is broad variability in how different departments and clinics are using these in Connect Care in Alberta, so I figured if they are optimizing and normalizing it is a good opportunity to look at standardizing as well.

Much appreciate any feedback - you can email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Thank you
Debbie