|
|
||||
| InfoRMS | ||||
| Displaying 5 issues at 23/Jul/25 2:09 PM. |
| Key | Summary | Description | Resolution | Resolution Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PS-194 | Remove "just text" as we have a current valueset |
Summary{*}:{*} Remove "just text" as we have a current valueset
Existing Wording: Short description Concept - reference to a terminology or just text Definition A concept that may be defined by a formal reference to a terminology or ontology. or may be provided by text. Proposed Wording: Short description Concept - reference to a terminology Definition A concept that may be defined by a formal reference to a terminology or ontology. Comment: Remove "just text" as we have a current valueset Submitted by: Myriam Talantikit Canada Health Infoway |
Not Persuasive | The referenced phrase is the definition of a CodeableConcept from the base FHIR specification
Further, we have the following comment: _Future releases of PS-CA may require use of coded entries. In this release, however, implementations that support codings are encouraged to send the codings for codeable concepts if they are available. Consistent with FHIR best practice, receivers should not produce failures or rejections if codings are received._ This should address the needed to encourage coded entries where possible |
| PS-117 | Improperly placed comment; PractitionerRoleLabPSCA.code |
Summary: Improperly placed comment
Existing Wording: Proposed Wording: Comment: Comment refers to work underway for .specialty Submitted by: Marc L'Arrivee Shared Health (MB) |
Persuasive with Modification | Revert to R4 comment which states "A person may have more than one role." |
| PS-88 | Suggestion on having clear guidance on the alignment between 1..1 elements and non-MustSupport flags in PS-CA against CA Core to avoid implementation ambiguity. |
Summary: Suggestion on having clear guidance on the alignment between 1..1 elements and non-MustSupport flags in PS-CA against CA Core to avoid implementation ambiguity.
Existing Wording: Proposed Wording: Comment: There seems to be a mismatch in how elements marked as 1..1 (mandatory) but not marked as MustSupport are defined in the PS-CA and CA Core profiles. Clear and consistent guidance is needed on how jurisdictional profiles and implementers should treat these elements. Submitted by: Philip Sales ([email protected]) OntarioHealth |
Considered for Future Use | Defer until CA Core discussion is complete and that we can be more explicit with Obligations |
| PS-84 | Suggestion on adding granularity in defining MustSupport elements for: MedicaitonStatement.timing |
Summary: Suggestion on adding granularity in defining MustSupport elements for: MedicaitonStatement.timing
Comment: The level of granularity for MustSupport (MS) elements remains an ongoing issue. During the Patient Summary LPR in Ontario the EMR vendors requested for OH to provide additional guidance on what specific child elements to be included in their PS data contribution. It would be beneficial for the PS-CA WG to collaborate and explore opportunities to define more specific guidance to improve consistency and reduce variations between the implementations across jurisdictions Submitted by: Cindy Jiang ([email protected]) Philip Sales ([email protected]) OntarioHealth |
Not Persuasive with Modification | Align with CA Core and undertake the broader review in concert with review of IPS Obligations |
| PS-83 | Suggestion on adding granularity in defining MustSupport elements for: MedicationRequest.timing |
Summary: Suggestion on adding granularity in defining MustSupport elements for: MedicationRequest.timing
Existing Wording: Proposed Wording: Comment: The level of granularity for MustSupport (MS) elements remains an ongoing issue. During the Patient Summary LPR in Ontario the EMR vendors requested for OH to provide additional guidance on what specific child elements to be included in their PS data contribution. It would be beneficial for the PS-CA WG to collaborate and explore opportunities to define more specific guidance to improve consistency and reduce variations between the implementations across jurisdictions Submitted by: Cindy Jiang ([email protected]) Philip Sales ([email protected]) OntarioHealth |
Not Persuasive with Modification | Align with CA Core and undertake the broader review in concert with review of IPS Obligations |
| Generated at Wed Jul 23 14:09:53 EDT 2025 by Sonia Balgah using Jira 10.3.2#10030002-sha1:0a5d322ae1b7fd5b314be5b31a27d9661f8301b2. |