Canadian FHIR Baseline Profiles - Profiling Stream Meeting - February 26th, 2-3pm EST

Attendees

Michael Savage
Sheridan Cook
Anne Belford
Rita Pyle
Angela Narad
Jason Lin
Joanie Harper
Mairead Fitzsimmons
Randy Nonay
Russ Buchanan
Shamil Nizamov
Thomas Zhou

Patient

• Patient.identifier, type, system, value > 1..1 in CAB, not in eRefferal
o Seems to be something we should not relax
o Can check with eReferral group

• Will look at socializing the ReasonForNoHCN extensions

• .name is flagged as invariant in CAB
o Not seen as an issue

• .telecom.system in CAB is 1..1 and 0..1 in eRef
o Not seen as needed to be loosened
o Will compare to other iGuides for patient.telecom.system

Practitioner

• .name > invariant flag placed on it in CAB and not in eRef
o Same action to take as the .name issue from Patient

• .qualification.code.coding.system: CAB has a preferred binding for a code system that may be an unnecessary difference from what’s defined
o Plan is to relax the binding strength to ‘example’ for the general Practitioner profile

Next Session: Will be moving to review of ACCESS PHI FHIR Spec

Hi all,

This Friday's Profiling Stream Meeting (Friday Feb 26th 2-3pm EST) will continue the Due Diligence Review of the eReferral FHIR iGuide(s): we will be looking at Patient, Practitioner, and Location profiles.

Also, I'm including the items flagged during the last session in case any eReferral folks see this prior to Friday; these items would be great to discuss on (or prior to) Friday as well if you have any comments:

AllergyIntollerance

Possible candidates for relaxation (in CA Baseline):

code.coding:NotAsked slice & code.coding:NoAllergy slice
o Small terminology differences between the valueSet that eReferral uses – though intent is the same
 eReferral has a required binding to build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/fhir-ips/ValueSet-allergy-intolerance-substance-condition-uv-ips.html which is made up of Snomed CT codes
 CA Baseline slices fix to hl7.org/fhir/v3/NullFlavor and 716186003 from SNOMED CT respectively.
o More follow up needed to understand how eReferral accounts for Not Asked

- onsetDateTime
o Baseline considers onsetDateTime to be MS, eReferral does not (both allow other data types)
o If onsetDateTime is more clinically desirable – need to follow-up with eReferral to see if the impact of them flagging onsetDateTime as must support

- Reaction.Substance.coding
o Coding is 1..* in CA Baseline, 0..* in eReferral
o Likely to relax after confirming reason that eReferral did not tighten cardinality to require a code be provided if reaction substance is known