-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 61
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
availability of data and safety #506
Changes from 1 commit
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -12,14 +12,18 @@ The user has just opened a patient's record. | |
|
||
## Context | ||
|
||
The patient whose record was opened, including their encounter, if applicable. | ||
The patient whose record was opened, including their encounter, if applicable. | ||
|
||
The FHIR ids referenced in `context` are expected to be available via the FHIR Server (if `fhirServer` is populated in the request) or via prefetch, if supported. However, the specification does not explicitly require this behavior and implementations should be aware that integrations may not fully support this expectation. | ||
|
||
Field | Optionality | Prefetch Token | Type | Description | ||
----- | -------- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ||
`userId` | REQUIRED | Yes | *string* | The id of the current user.<br />For example, if the user represents a FHIR resource on the given FHIR server, the resource type would be one of [Practitioner](https://www.hl7.org/fhir/practitioner.html), [Patient](https://www.hl7.org/fhir/patient.html), or [RelatedPerson](https://www.hl7.org/fhir/relatedperson.html).<br />If the user was a Practitioner, this value would be `Practitioner/123` | ||
`patientId` | REQUIRED | Yes | *string* | The FHIR `Patient.id` of the current patient in context | ||
`encounterId` | OPTIONAL | Yes | *string* | The FHIR `Encounter.id` of the current encounter in context | ||
|
||
For information on patient safety issues see [Security & Safety](../../specification/1.0/#security-and-safety). | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Suggest: There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Does this addition provide any information that is not already available in the base spec? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Dennis - that's a good question. Bas, how much of the base spec should we be repeating here? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Adding comments about outdated/stale clinical data and a link to the Security and Safety page is redundant since the 1.0 specification already calls this out
@bvdh, are you agreeable to removing this language from the hook since it's already covered by the published base spec? |
||
|
||
### Examples | ||
|
||
```json | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggest:
If the CDS-Client supports pretech and/or provides a FHIR Server, the CDS-Client SHOULD provide FHIR Resources referenced by FHIR ids in
context
. As this behavior is optional, CDS-Server implementers need to be aware that not all CDS-Clients will support this behavior.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it appropriate to add a statement to the base spec about the nature of context? e.g. if ids are provided, they must be resolvable through some mechanism available to the CDS Service. The point being that if an id is present, in order to be useful, the CDS Service must be able to call the FHIR server to retrieve it, or to have that same data prefetched by the CDS Client.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey Bas, does the rewrite address your concerns? I modified your suggestion for readability and consistency in terminology.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
First, a few relevant sections of the spec:
On CDS Hooks Anatomy, a
hook
isOn the HTTP Request to a CDS Service,
context
isOn Providing FHIR Resources to a CDS Service
On Prefetch Template
In summary, the spec emphasizes that:
It isn't the responsibility of a hook definition to warn CDS Services about CDS Clients that choose to limit decision support by preventing access to needed data (or otherwise). Such CDS Clients will not gain adoption and I don't think statements on a hook definition to address their unusable nature add much value.
If we want to add clarifications to a future version of the spec to comment on the nature of FHIR references in a given
context
, that or other similar updates may be helpful. In the meantime, I don't think the 1.0 specification precludes the ability to publish the existing patient-view definition (prior to these amendments).@bvdh, thoughts?