- Chair- Craig
- Scribe- Erin
- 14 voters
- gForge 15931 - do we need to add to Immunization to point back to a MedicationRequest record? Aligns with Event.basedOn
- Review R5 timelines and general deadlines (FHIR ballot site)
- Review Security categorization on Immunization resources
- Update on the v2-FHIR mapping project
|5 min||Intro and Agenda Review||Craig|
|15 min||gForge 15931||Ewout|
gForge 15931 - do we need to add to Immunization to point back to a MedicationRequest record? Aligns with Event.basedOn
|25 min||Review R5 timelines and general deadlines (FHIR ballot site)|
|25 min||R5 Scope- Immunizations||Craig|
R5 Immunizations- Adverse Reaction; will be discussed Wed Q4
Adverse Event- could have been prevented but wasn't. When we started considering Adverse Event as a Resource to document these events associated with immunizations, there was questions about whether or not this is really just an observation.
Adverse Event is a clinical significant decision, almost administrative that could be based on observations.
Need to have more verbiage on Adverse Event to clearly articulate the use cases and describe its usage. Suspected vs Confirmed, almost begs a workflow discussion. This is an instance of something happening. Maybe get someone from the CDC VEARS system to discuss and understand what their definition of an adverse event and expected work flow.
May want to invite Michelle to a future call.
R5 Distinction between ImmunizationRecommendation (Security- Patient) and MedicationRequest for Immunizations. There is still back and forth regarding what the Immunization Recourse should be called, even though we found it non-persuasive.
R5 ImmunizationEvaluation (Security- Patient); Could this concept of evaluation be applied to other use cases other than just immunizations? Dan mentioned evaluating a patient's response narcan.... positive response could be indicative of an overdose
Contact CDS to discuss evaluation
Talk with Jay Lyle for the impact on negation- this could be a use case for the white paper
We could probably go back and provide more details in the definitions of the components.
|10 min||Review Security categorization on Immunization resources||Craig|| New Security Categorization in R4.|
|10 min||Update on the v2-FHIR mapping project||Craig|
We approved a PPS for the v2 to FHIR mapping project.
Started with trying to map data types. What a V2 data type maps to in FHIR may depend on the context; sometimes may map to a resource for example. They did a few data types and came to the conclusion that there will be different types of mapping. Need to start to looking at the messages and the segments. So they selected 5-6 messages to start with. In the VXU, PID matched to PID... but there is a lot that isn't a straightforward map, or doesn't map at all. In those instances, will need to determine whether or not extensions or additional values to value sets are needed. This should be determined based on need. How will the 80/20 rule apply? Maybe establish extensions or additional values as needed.
Upcoming quarters where this may be discussed: TQ3, TQ4, WQ4, THQ3
Calls- every other week; but varies. Check with OO.
Talk with CDS to discuss immunization evaluation
- Talk with Jay Lyle about immunization evaluation and its possible impact on negation