...
| Country | Date | Response | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | 18MAR2017 | This proposal seems beneficial to SNOMED, because 1) it derives from another standard; 2) it provides strong editorial guidance for content that has been inconsistently modeled across extensions. Moreover, it squarely anchors care plans into information artifacts. No drawbacks come to mind. | |||
| UK | 27MAR2017 | Although generally this is what the UK expected I will need to consult on the recommendations formally with the change in the description. If we could extend the deadline for feedback to the 14th April this should enable me to do this. | |||
| DK | 27MAR2017 | Danish nurses tell me care plans are very relevant for them too, but presently the nurses do not have any comments to this proposal. | |||
| AU | 28MAR2017 | I not aware of any immenent requirement for this work within Australia, so no obvious impact, but it seems reasonable. Tidying up the qualifiers is always good. I assume it's only a specific subset of "regime/therapies" that are to be deprecated (it doesn't look like these are in the international release anyway? As for the "concept model" for these - seems reasonable, though I'm not sure about the need for "Type of clinical document" attribute... would an |IS A| be sufficient? One thing to note though, is that the FHIR seems to have defined a value set based on the qualifier values (see https://www.hl7.org/fhir/valueset-care-plan-category.html ) (It's only a "maturity level 1". But Record Artifact seems like a more accurate class. (I've made a note for FHIR to "watch this space"). | |||
| Member countries without a CMAG rep |
...