Difference between revisions of "Open Issues"

Revision as of 09:17, 1 June 2014

Please feel free to edit comments in-line in this page, or to add extra issues at the end. As this is a wiki, all previous versions are automatically presevered, without needing any explicit action.

1. Is the correspondence document list a suitable primary means of classifying documents for searching?
2. If so, should the correspondence document list be classCode or typeCode? XDS-I usage would favour classCode, but size would favour typeCode!
3. Do we need specific codes for different specialities? e.g. in place of “Report”, do we need “Radiology report”, “Haematology report”, “Biochemistry report” etc.? Doing so would go against XDS guidance for classCode (which should be generic).
4. How should “associated specialities” be represented? The suggestion below is to use eventCodes, but there are 3 other possibilities:
   1. For requests (not reports), use the finer grained classCodes/typeCodes to indicate receiving speciality.
   2. For reports, use an “indirect author” (role = recipient) to indicate the destination.
   3. The “Indirect author” could also be used for requests
5. What confidentiality codes should be used?
6. Do staff need unique identifiers (GMC number etc.) or is name+institution adequate?
7. Should specialities be simplified to be “patient-centric” rather than “author-centric”?
8. What document formats (mine types / formats) should be permitted?
9. What (if any) structural differences would need to be made to provide equivalent support for medical and social care?