Your browser does not appear to support JavaScript. You may want to try one of the following:
You may want to try one of the following:
If the above does not work, try reloading the page yourself. Note that you will lose any unsaved changes:
shift
control
Show details
Hide details
This form has to be reloaded. This most likely happened because your session has expired, which might take to the login page. (If you think that you shouldn't see this message and that the problem persists, please contact support.)
- We are analysing wave 6 changes for eP/eD in our national implementation.
Things I read in Art-Decor, don’t match 100% with what I think were agreed on in working groups. Probably just the issue with wording, but I’d like to confirm my understanding.
There are two identifiers for medicinal products: medicinal product code (ManufacturedMaterial.code) and medicinal product package code (containerPackagedProduct.code).
Medicinal product code clearly allows national codes. Good, but we don’t have one.
It clearly does not allow PCID, but doesn’t exactly mention national package codes. (So, I would rephrase this as „package code (national or PCID blabla)“).
Package code, on the other hand, does not seem to allow national codes, but only PCID.
Our national implementation uses national package codes and we don’t have medicinal product codes. So far, the package code was sent in the manufacturedMaterial.code field. In our pursuit to be better implementers, we were planning to use it in the containerPackagedProduct.code field, but the textual explanation doesn’t really support that idea.
Would you say we should send our national package code (which is the only identifier we have for products) as the medicinal product code or package code?
- Modify descriptions
-