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. |
| 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"). |
| NL | 29MAR2017 | We agree with deprecating the suggested qualifier values and regime/therapies, because we do believe a care plan is a document. I would like to discuss the suggested modelling changes (like care location) internally with my team. It would be a good thing to share the record artifacts with other countries before more countries will do the same. We are not yet working on care plans related with Snomed CT, but we do have some record artifacts in our extension, may be modelled in a different way (other parents, not EHR related). We made those for XDS metadata purposes (what document is exchanged). I checked, but that does not count for the care plans. Summary: Agree. |
| SE | 2017-03-30 | There is a current Swedish national project looking at representation of care plans. No decisions have been made regarding terminology so Sweden would not be affected. The suggested changes would improve consistency. |
| NZ | 3APR2017 | General comments summarised: A useful initiative and the link to ISO 139040:2015 is noted. It may be too narrow to consider a care plan as simply a record artifact (i.e. the documentation of a care plan). This seems a reasonable way forward. |
| Member countries without a CMAG rep |
CMAG response
| Date | CMAG Response | Next steps |
|---|---|---|
Final outcome:
Date: