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 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. |
| Member countries without a CMAG rep |
CMAG response
| Date | CMAG Response | Next steps |
|---|---|---|
Final outcome:
Date: