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

MedRequest.status definition #1058

Open
PeteSalis opened this issue Mar 31, 2021 · 6 comments
Open

MedRequest.status definition #1058

PeteSalis opened this issue Mar 31, 2021 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
Structured Issue associated with Access Record Structured capability

Comments

@PeteSalis
Copy link
Collaborator

Is the way that TPP have implemented this field correct?

Is our spec correct. This field should be the status of the medication order and not a reflection of whether the patient is taking the medication.

@PeteSalis PeteSalis added the Structured Issue associated with Access Record Structured capability label Mar 31, 2021
@PeteSalis PeteSalis self-assigned this Mar 31, 2021
@PeteSalis
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Also check the consumer guidance.

@martinhillyard
Copy link
Collaborator

Consumer data may need to be updated. Needs to be checked along with the guidance.

@PeteSalis
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Discussed with Martin.

We agree that for Med Request status where the intent is order it should not be active.

Where the intent is plan it is complete once all the authorised issues have been made or the authorisationExpiryDate has been reached. For repeat dispense once the issues have been made then the plan is complete

I will write the new versionof the MedRequest.status

For Medication Statement we agreed that we need to run the FHIR definition past the clinicians.

This could be used to carry the status from the system. This would mean this field in GP Connect is populated inconsistently as that is the behaviour in the GP estate. If we followed the exact FHIR definition it would give consumers the option of using the more consistent MedRequest.status or the variable MedStatement.status. Is this desirable or will it just be more confusing for consuming systems?

martinhillyard added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 27, 2022
@martinhillyard
Copy link
Collaborator

Change applied. Release note required

martinhillyard added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 27, 2022
Release notes added for #1176, #1180, #1058, #1074, #1075, #1177 to full history
martinhillyard added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 27, 2022
Added issues to the release notes for #1177, #1058, #1074, #1075
@martinhillyard
Copy link
Collaborator

Typo for completed code needs to be changed

martinhillyard added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 2, 2022
Status code name for completed correct as per note on #1058
@martinhillyard
Copy link
Collaborator

Changes don't seem to have not been merged into 1.6.2 as yet. Fix version needs to be updated according to where these changes will be applied or issue closed if the changes are not going to be made.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Structured Issue associated with Access Record Structured capability
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants