Mapping between IG logical model and document logical model

[bdc-ehealth]

The number of fields in the logical model in the Word document #165 is different from the number of fields in the logical model in the IG. Also the names and descriptions are different. The mapping is not very clear to me. Can this be clarified?

RecordedDate
UniqueIdentifier
UniqueIdentifier.GUID
UniqueIdentifier.version
Recorder
Patient
MedicationLineStatus
AdherenceStatus
StatusReason
Product/substance
Product/Substance.MedicationType
OriginType
ReasonReference
startMedicationDate
EndMedicationDate
Posologie
Posologie.OverrideReason
Note
Reaction
Reaction.Manifestation
Reaction.DateReaction
Reaction.Substance
VisiFlag (Permission)
VisiFlag.NISS
VisiFlag.Discipline
TherapeuticIntent
Exposure
GroupIdentifier(RequestGroup)
DispenseRequestNeeded
PSSNumber
PSSReason

[costateixeira]

All the fields have been reviewed by the group for the current release;
The additional elements may be added at a later stage e.g. Reaction.
There are elements (like references to groupRequest) which are not expected to be in scope as RequestGroup is NOT a simple grouper of requests, it is only when requests are chained like in complex dependencies (another issue should be created in Referral to reconsider that, if it hasn't been abandoned yet).

[bdc-ehealth]

@costateixeira

We need a business document that clearly reflects the status of the published IG. Otherwise there will be problems at the level of the "comité de gestion eHealth"

[KarlienHL7Belgium]

Discussed during WG medication 16/4: RIZIV as business owner will look into the mapping b/w business rules and logical model and report here if any issues remain. Anne N will oversee this