Loading...

XML

Word

Printable

JSON

Type: Change Request
Resolution: Unresolved
Priority: Medium

Specification:

FHIR Core (FHIR)
Raised in Version:

DSTU2
Work Group:

Orders & Observations
Related URL:
http://hl7.org/fhir/2016sep/workflow.html#issues
Related Page(s):

Workflow
Related Section(s):
12.1.3
Resolution Description:

Hide

Feb 06 2017 Grahame Grieve/Eric Haas: 8-0-0

Ballot Resolution: Considered for Future Use

This will not be addressed in STU 3 but will be considered for Release 4

--------------------------------------------

This will not be resolved in time for STU 4 but will be considered for Release 5

Show
Feb 06 2017 Grahame Grieve/Eric Haas: 8-0-0 Ballot Resolution : Considered for Future Use This will not be addressed in STU 3 but will be considered for Release 4 -------------------------------------------- This will not be resolved in time for STU 4 but will be considered for Release 5
Change Category:
Enhancement

Existing Wording: Supply Request, DeviceUseRequest, VisionPrescription

Comment:

Patient is required in DeviceUseRequest, while optional in the other two - IF that remains the case, then need to stay separate.

VisionPrescription does have specific elements that the others dont have and is common, so whether it is a standard extension on DeviceUseRequest or its own resource does not matter so much - so keep separate

Summary:

Thoughts on combining SupplyRequest, DeviceUseRequest and VisionPrescription