Panel is allowed but it is confusing

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Priority: Medium
    • Genomics Reporting (FHIR)
    • STU3
    • Clinical Genomics
    • STU
    • (profiles) [deprecated]
    • 1.2
    • Hide

      Proposal from FHIR subgroup: Persuasive with mod --

      1. Add textual guidance pointing out the two approaches to nesting information (nested/referenced reports AND nested/grouped observations)

      2. Change name on panel to show it is NOT currently 1-1 with ordering panels ("grouper")

      3. Change cardinality of recommended-action reference (should be 0..*)

      4. File a separate tracker for how to align best with O&O on the ordering side (to confirm grouper could be used with serviceRequest to align with the common notion of "panel" where labs want to report out specific panels)

      Show
      Proposal from FHIR subgroup: Persuasive with mod -- 1. Add textual guidance pointing out the two approaches to nesting information (nested/referenced reports AND nested/grouped observations) 2. Change name on panel to show it is NOT currently 1-1 with ordering panels ("grouper") 3. Change cardinality of recommended-action reference (should be 0..*) 4. File a separate tracker for how to align best with O&O on the ordering side (to confirm grouper could be used with serviceRequest to align with the common notion of "panel" where labs want to report out specific panels)
    • Patrick / Jamie: 14-0-0
    • Correction
    • Non-compatible

      6. Panel is allowed but is confusing. It is really a set of related observations. If so perhaps it should be expressed that way. Should it be at the order level or the observation level? In a sense, components represent a panel.

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            clemmcdonald
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: