Open Issues

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 the large size of the list would favour typeCode!
3. How important is it to maintain consistency between XDS & XDS-I metadata conventions?
4. 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).
5. How should “associated specialities” be represented? One suggestion is to use eventCodes, but there are at least 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
6. What confidentiality codes should be used?
7. Do staff need unique identifiers (GMC number etc.) or is name+institution adequate?
8. Should specialities be simplified to be “patient-centric” rather than “author-centric”?
9. What document formats (mine types / formats) should be permitted?
10. What (if any) structural differences would need to be made to provide equivalent support for medical and social care?
11. Are we only aiming to provide metadata for "complete documents" or is there a need to index entries/sections (such as the RCP agreed headings)within such documents Dave Harvey (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
12. What URI should be used for the NHS number? This is also being raised by Moorfields for FHIR usage. Dave Harvey (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2014 (BST)