Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Question - Functional] Support Parameters fit in PlanDefinition, what about patient variables ? #18

Open
NathanPeeters opened this issue Mar 28, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@NathanPeeters
Copy link
Collaborator

NathanPeeters commented Mar 28, 2024

There's actually two levels of variables to be received from PSS to EPD and not one.

Currently, we use the resource Plan definition to return the data required in the field input.requirement (fieldtype datarequirement) :
image

The problem is that when we analyze the fieldtype datarequirement in FHIR, we see that we can't put two levels of variable in the structure :
image

  • Is it possible to structure it in PlanDefinition
  • Would another resource be relevant instead of planDefinition (for example, something more flexible like parameters ?)
@NathanPeeters NathanPeeters changed the title [Question - Functional] Patient variables fit in PlanDefinition, what about patient parameter ? [Question - Functional] Support Parameters fit in PlanDefinition, what about patient variables ? Apr 23, 2024
@NathanPeeters
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Following 24/04/2024 meeting with José : If this solution is maintained, possibility to use field "profile" to integrate a questionnaire.
Nathan answer : Not sure it is feasable, but I found "definition(x)" in the plan definition that maybe could fit to associate a questionnaireResponse
image

@costateixeira
Copy link
Contributor

I think this has been answered in the examples
https://build.fhir.org/ig/hl7-be/pss/branches/cpg-guidance/functional-overview.html

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants