Summary
Request for input: Definitions and use cases in relation to Care plan documents. Please see the links section for further information.
Topic presenter: Monica Harry
| Date | Requested action | Requester(s) | Response required by: | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 March 2017 | Upload of any additional documents or links by Monica Harry | 16 March 2017 | ||
Links
Document Link: SCTQA-92 Revise Care plan concepts
EAG discussion: 2017-01-20 Editorial Advisory Group Conference call
CMAG meeting: 2017-03-14 - CMAG Meeting
Relevant documents
Actions:
| Date | Requested action | Requester(s) | Response required by: | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 March 2017 |
Note: Monica to provide a briefing note. |
| Please post your final responses in the Country response table below. Discussion comments can be made as comments. |
Country response
| 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 to retire the regime/therapy content as this may be being used as the actual procedure to manage a patient on a plan. If we could extend the deadline for feedback to the 14th April this should enable me to do this. |
| Member countries without a CMAG rep |
CMAG response
| Date | CMAG Response | Next steps |
|---|---|---|
Final outcome:
Date: