Patient Capability Statement changes to use defaults #172
Conversation
mjosborne1
requested review from
JayMurdoch,
michael-wilson-au and
StephThaoOng
mjosborne1
changed the title
| @@ -58,12 +58,18 @@ | |||
| <valueCode value="SHOULD"/> | |||
| </extension> | |||
| </supportedProfile> | |||
| <documentation value="Patients **SHALL** support the ServiceRequest resource, at least one AU eRequesting ServiceRequest profile, and the conformance expectations for the ServiceRequest resource.

The Patient **SHOULD** support the `_include` parameter for `ServiceRequest:patient`, `ServiceRequest:requester` and `ServiceRequest:encounter`."/> | |||
| <documentation value="AU eRequesting Patient actor **SHALL** support the ServiceRequest resource, at least one AU eRequesting ServiceRequest profile, and the conformance expectations for the ServiceRequest resource.

Patient actor **SHOULD** support the `_include` parameter for `ServiceRequest:patient`, `ServiceRequest:requester` and `ServiceRequest:encounter`."/> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missed occurrence of Patient actor rather than AU eRequesting Patient actor
| @@ -315,7 +489,7 @@ | |||
| <valueCode value="SHALL"/> | |||
| </extension> | |||
| </supportedProfile> | |||
| <documentation value="If Patient supports the Observation resource, the Observation Pregnancy - Status (IPS), the Observation Pregnancy - Expected Delivery Date (IPS) profiles and the conformance expectations for the Observation resource **SHALL** be supported."/> | |||
| <documentation value="If Patient actor supports the Observation resource, the Observation Pregnancy - Status (IPS), the Observation Pregnancy - Expected Delivery Date (IPS) profiles and the conformance expectations for the Observation resource **SHALL** be supported."/> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missed occurrence of Patient actor rather than AU eRequesting Patient actor
| @@ -234,7 +328,27 @@ | |||
| <valueCode value="SHALL"/> | |||
| </extension> | |||
| </supportedProfile> | |||
| <documentation value="Patient clients **SHOULD** support the PractitionerRole resource, the AU Core profile, and the conformance expectations for the PractitionerRole resource."/> | |||
| <documentation value="If the AU eRequesting Patient actor supports the PractitionerRole resource, AU eRequesting Patient actor **SHALL** support the AU Core PractitionerRole profile, and the conformance expectations for the PractitionerRole resource.

Patient actor **MAY** support the `_include` parameter for `PractitionerRole:practitioner` and `PractitionerRole:organization`"/> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missed occurrence of Patient actor rather than AU eRequesting Patient actor
| @@ -58,28 +58,34 @@ | |||
| <valueCode value="SHOULD"/> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Commenting here for inline. Change resource conformance to SHOULD, and supported profiles to SHALL.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
? if ServiceRequest is different because Resource/Profile conformance rules are must support one of the 2 profiles.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@michael-wilson-au could you please advise on the approach here? Current documentation states: "The AU eRequesting Patient actor SHALL support the ServiceRequest resource, at least one AU eRequesting ServiceRequest profile, and the conformance expectations for the ServiceRequest resource."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this one is special given the existing narrative. I suggest we keep this one as is and add it to the TDG discussion on variances from default obligations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Restored Resource, Profile support to SHALL, SHOULD/SHOULD
| @@ -58,28 +58,34 @@ | |||
| <valueCode value="SHOULD"/> | |||
| </extension> | |||
| </supportedProfile> | |||
| <documentation value="Patients **SHALL** support the ServiceRequest resource, at least one AU eRequesting ServiceRequest profile, and the conformance expectations for the ServiceRequest resource.

The Patient **SHOULD** support the `_include` parameter for `ServiceRequest:patient`, `ServiceRequest:requester` and `ServiceRequest:encounter`."/> | |||
| <documentation value="The AU eRequesting Patient actor **SHALL** support the ServiceRequest resource, at least one AU eRequesting ServiceRequest profile, and the conformance expectations for the ServiceRequest resource.

AU eRequesting Patient actor **SHOULD** support the `_include` parameter for `ServiceRequest:patient`, `ServiceRequest:requester` and `ServiceRequest:encounter`."/> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Update to reflect change to conformance, and change the conformance for _include parameters from SHOULD to MAY.
Eg "If the AU eRequesting Patient actor supports the ServiceRequest resource, the AU eRequesting Patient actor SHALL support at least one AU eRequesting ServiceRequest profile, and the conformance expectations for the ServiceRequest resource.
AU eRequesting Patient actor MAY support the _include parameter for ServiceRequest:patient, ServiceRequest:requester and ServiceRequest:encounter."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated to MAY in doc line
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ServiceRequest has specific conformance on search: See https://jira.hl7.org/browse/FHIR-46942
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As per @michael-wilson-au please retain original agreed conformance and note for TDG review.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed conformance for _include patient, requester and encounter search per JIRA-46492 has been applied.
…hich is still SHOULD because rules are must support one of the 2 profiles.
| <td><b>-</b></td> | ||
| <td><b>MAY</b></td> | ||
| <td><b>MAY</b></td> | ||
| <td><b>MAY</b></td> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Commenting here for inline - the _include parameters have agreed default of MAY for placer, filler, patient, please amend.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ServiceRequest has specific conformance on search: https://jira.hl7.org/browse/FHIR-46942
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As per @michael-wilson-au please retain original, agreed conformance and document difference for TDG review.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed conformance for _include patient, requester and encounter search per JIRA-46492 has been applied to the parameters table.
ServiceRequest:patient ServiceRequest:requester ServiceRequest:encounter
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As per @michael-wilson-au, please revert resources that were originally MAY (those that are referenced by SHOULD profiles): Condition, DocRef, Location, Procedure, RelPerson.
Defaults not to be applied to these.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reverted resource conformance on Condition, DocRef, Location, Procedure, RelPerson to MAY.
| <td><b>-</b></td> | ||
| <td><b>MAY</b></td> | ||
| <td><b>MAY</b></td> | ||
| <td><b>MAY</b></td> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
According to FHIR-48915, the conformance level for all search parameters, including the modifier _include, for the Placer, Filler, and Patient actors is SHOULD.
Changes for JIRA-47146: