[ERSSUP-65227]-[]-[Initial A and G examples]-[DMW] #597
Conversation
| "url": "https://fhir.nhs.uk/StructureDefinition/Extension-ERS-Referral", | ||
| "extension": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "url": "sourceSystem", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As per here, I would also question if this is needed.
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| "priority": "routine", | ||
| "intent": "order", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see there is a question Question for this already. I agree we should check again. Although "order" was picked when we discussed in the context of Patient Care APIs
| "url": "state", | ||
| "valueCoding": { | ||
| "system": "https://fhir.nhs.uk/CodeSystem/eRS-ReferralState", | ||
| "code": "INCOMPLETE", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Casing. Agreed we should check Question.
This one already exists in simplifier though as we created for Patient Care.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In Patient care, this is "https://fhir.nhs.uk/StructureDefinition/Extension-eRS-ServiceRequest-State"
should the url be consistent across the two systems?
| "system": "https://fhir.nhs.uk/Id/ods-organization-code", | ||
| "value": "C81007" | ||
| }, | ||
| "display": "VERNON STREET MEDICAL CTR" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We will have to make a decision on display values.
For resources we don't expose ourselves (like Organisation/Practitioner) I'm more open to this as a shortcut. But for those we do expose it would be better if they hit the API (i.e. GET HealthcareService)
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "requester": { | ||
| "reference": "#requester" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems like the business are still deciding what to return here. Not clear if we would have to return details about obo in addition.
| "coding": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "system": "https://fhir.nhs.uk/CodeSystem/message-category-servicerequest", | ||
| "code": "referral" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be request?
| "coding": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "system": "https://fhir.nhs.uk/CodeSystem/message-category-servicerequest", | ||
| "code": "referral" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be request?
| ] | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "identifier": [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ahh yes as this is server assigned it just comes back in the response.
Actually for a conversion it would be pulled through from the linked A&G request too.
| "questionnaire": "https://fhir.nhs.uk/Questionnaire/ERS-ShortList", | ||
| "basedOn": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "reference": "ServiceRequest/a.832db7fa-ebdd-44b6-ab3b-8329c2d43149/_history/5" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see we have a question about including the version here already.
I suspect we may need this for optimistic locking. We can't escape that the shortlist is a sub-resource of the referral really.
Certainly the reference type does allow it http://hl7.org/fhir/R4/references-definitions.html#Reference.reference
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "subject": { | ||
| "identifier": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Strictly probably don't need this here. But we could include.
| "linkId": "searchCriteria", | ||
| "answer": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "valueString": "HealthcareService?supportedSpecialty=general-medicine&supportedPriority=routine" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As per the Question we will need to look closer at service search to see if we can do it restfully like this. It would be nice if we could to avoid an operation.
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "valueReference": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Currently e-RS effectively only supports a single service on the shortlist. We should probably keep the examples aligned with this.
(I have heard talk about allowing multiple services in the conversation so we should keep the flexibility of having the shortlist for A&G)
| ] | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "source": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice there is a slot for who answered the question (i.e. who created the shortlist). Have the business asked for this?
I notice it isn't in the request. Probably does makes sense for the server to fill this .
| "reference": "ServiceRequest/a.832db7fa-ebdd-44b6-ab3b-8329c2d43149" | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "subject": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again probably redundant but could include.
| ], | ||
| "note": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "text": "Please advise me on this patient who ...(information about patient)" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
RE Question
Looking at the documentation on "note":
Additional notes or commentary about the communication by the sender, receiver or other interested parties.
This make it sound like it is notes about the message rather than the note is the message. So potentially the payload.contentString is a better fit.
| "coding": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "system": "https://fhir.nhs.uk/CodeSystem/message-category-servicerequest", | ||
| "code": "referral" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be request?
| "url": "state", | ||
| "valueCoding": { | ||
| "system": "https://fhir.nhs.uk/R4/CodeSystem/eRS-ReferralState-1", | ||
| "code": "ACTIVE", ( do we need to mirror the ers states ( like AWAITING_RESPONSE) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes this is the defining state.
| "requester": { | ||
| "reference": "#requester" | ||
| }, | ||
| "supportingInfo": [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I like the forward references here. Then you don't have to go searching for things related to this ServiceRequest.
nhsd-david-wass
force-pushed
the
feature/ERSSUP-65227
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2a73645
to
3a54223
Compare
|
/azp run |
1 similar comment
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
1 similar comment
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
nhsd-david-wass
force-pushed
the
feature/ERSSUP-65227
branch
2 times, most recently
from
cce58fd
to
e31f43f
Compare
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
nhsd-david-wass
force-pushed
the
feature/ERSSUP-65227
branch
from
2169549
to
b7a5072
Compare
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
nhsd-david-wass
force-pushed
the
feature/ERSSUP-65227
branch
5 times, most recently
from
cb0a03e
to
f90d7f3
Compare
nhsd-david-wass
force-pushed
the
feature/ERSSUP-65227
branch
from
f90d7f3
to
68ff7cb
Compare
nhsd-david-wass
force-pushed
the
feature/ERSSUP-65227
branch
from
68ff7cb
to
dafc9b1
Compare
Summary
Add any other relevant notes or explanations here. Remove this line if you have nothing to add.
Reviews Required
Review Checklist
ℹ️ This section is to be filled in by the reviewer.