Loading...
Help
Login
Busy
Search
eHDSI - Templates
 
Template locked

OK Not OK
Templates (External repositories)

Warning Ok
Warning
Filter
eHDSI eP/eD Manufactured Material
Issues (2)
Change Request Status = Closed (epsos-issue-392): pharm:generalizedMaterialKind must have the determinerCode attribute
TypeChange RequestStatusChange Request Status = Closed PriorityNormal
Events
Tracking / Status = Closed 2023-01-18 14:46:50: Tracking by Mathias Ghys
Assignment2023-01-18 14:33:19: Assigned To Mathias Ghys by Mathias Ghys
Tracking / Status = Open 2023-01-18 14:33:18: Tracking by Mathias Ghys
Description
Finding:

According to the XML Schema definitions, the determinerCode attribute is required (this is what the validator uses for the Schema validation):

<xs:complexType name="COCT_MT230100UV01.MaterialKind">
        <xs:sequence>
            <xs:group ref="hl7v3:InfrastructureRootElements"/>
            <xs:element name="code" type="hl7v3:CD" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
            <xs:element name="name" type="hl7v3:EN" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
        </xs:sequence>
        <xs:attributeGroup ref="hl7v3:InfrastructureRootAttributes"/>
        <xs:attribute name="classCode" type="hl7v3:EntityClassMaterial" use="required"/>
        <xs:attribute name="determinerCode" type="hl7v3:EntityDeterminerDetermined" use="required"/>
    </xs:complexType>

In the CDA IGs, this attribute is specified, but set to optional.

I also had a look in the HL7 IPS CDA Implementation Guides, and there the determinerCode is not even specified, so they are also not aligned with the schema definitions.

Also the eHDSI PS Manufactured Material template must be checked.

Suggestion:

- Add the determinerCode attribute to the pharm:generalizedMaterialKind element

Further explanation:

-

Change Request Status = Closed (epsos-issue-394): Improve description for medicinal product and medicinal product package codes
TypeChange RequestStatusChange Request Status = Closed PriorityNormal
Events
Tracking / Status = Closed 2023-01-18 14:47:38: Tracking by Mathias Ghys
Description
Improved descriptions as approved in eHMSEG STF Arch WG meeting
Assignment2023-01-18 14:37:32: Assigned To Mathias Ghys by Mathias Ghys
Tracking / Status = Open 2023-01-18 14:37:31: Tracking by Mathias Ghys
Description
Finding:

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?


Suggestion:

- Modify descriptions

Further explanation:

-

 
 
Busy
Structure Definitions (External repositories)