Resource constraints based on Jurisdiction which are not well documented

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Not Persuasive with Modification
    • Priority: Medium
    • US Core (FHIR)
    • US Realm Task Force
    • Profiles and Extensions
    • Hide

      Will consult with ig tooling to see if able to change the warning to be specific for implantable devices.

      The requirement is only for implantables to be used with the Us Core Implantables profile.

      Add add'l guidance to implementation notes to say essentially to use FHIR or other use case specific profile for non-implantable devices - e.g. softare etc

      Show
      Will consult with ig tooling to see if able to change the warning to be specific for implantable devices. The requirement is only for implantables to be used with the Us Core Implantables profile. Add add'l guidance to implementation notes to say essentially to use FHIR or other use case specific profile for non-implantable devices - e.g. softare etc
    • Eric Haas/Drew Torres: 6-0-0
    • Clarification
    • Non-substantive

      Similar to the concerns about definitional resources, we also see resource constraints being imposed based on Jurisdiction which are not well documented and could have better computational descriptions (e.g., for use of US-Core), and furthermore, that these constraints are being enforced on resources where they are not always applicable (e.g., reporting errors because a Device that is not implantable does not conform to the FHIR US-Core implantable device profile), and there are applications where jurisidictional constraints also impose cross-resource requirements, especially in the context of definitions.

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            David Pyke
            David Pyke, John Moehrke
            Watchers:
            5 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: