Canadian FHIR Baseline Profiles - Due Diligence Review - IPS – May 7th, 2-3pm EST

Attendees

Michael Savage
Sheridan Cook
Dan Simic
Igor Sirkovich
Joel Francis
Ken Sinn
Randy Nonay
Shamil Nizamov

Device

• Thoughts on changing device profile name to just (medical)
• Not feeling like the IPS is a good point of comparison for our evolving Device profiles
• Would mark (medical and non-medical) as still under discussion
• Commented that canadian jurisdictions use their own device codes, not great for interoperability on this; issue of local terminologies for these devices, which should be a national code set of devices

Medication

• .code
o .coding.system & .coding.code are 1..1 in CAB but not in IPS (both guides have MS flag)
o Noted as a difference, but decision is to keep our contstraints and not relax
o Thoughts for adding slices for SNOMED and ATC code sets (this would in-line MedRequest/MedStatment, etc.)

• .ingredient
o Worth noting that we don’t place any constraints on this element, and that we have a rationale for not placing any (as opposed to just ignoring the element)

Hi all!

For our Friday May 7th 2-3pm EST Profiling Meeting, we will be continuing our Due Diligence Review comparing the CA Baseline Profiles to the IPS FHIR iGuide, and will focus on the following profiles:

1. Device
2. Medication

Hoping to have an update from the IPS team re: the items raised in the last DDR meeting by the time of this meeting.

Thank you!