Hi All,
Just thought I would forward a conversation on specialities from the HPD group that has a close relationship to our discussion yesterday on services.
Cheers,
-carl
···
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 1:46 PM, James Derrickson jfderrickson@gmail.com wrote:
I have seen this request originate from multiple sources and expressed in different ways.
It would be incorrect to group a sub-specialty as an nth specialty because there are officially recognized “sub-specialties”. So technically, a sub-specialty is not a specialty.
There are also use cases to list providers by “area of interest” for consumers of healthcare and healthcare data analysis. This is another attribute that influences patient care and is considered important determiner of quality of care. Are there plans to expand the HPD standard for more granularity?
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:08:16 PM UTC-4, Greg Carver wrote:
I would think you should just use multiple hcSpecialisation attributes on provider & organization as needed. It’s 0…n isn’t it? It doesn’t seem strictly necessary to create a sub-specialty field in the schema.
If a particular consumer wants to categorize specializations into hierarchies for display or search, that’s it’s choice, but the effort would fall on the consumer software.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, James Derrickson jfderr...@gmail.com wrote:
HPD users have expressed interest in collecting sub-specialty information. In the current HPD data model can subspecialty be reflected? Are there plans to add sub specialty information to the HPD format?
The American Board of Medical Specialties list the approved specialty and subspecialty certificates: http://www.abms.org/who_we_help/physicians/specialties.aspx
–
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “ihe-hpd-implementors” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ihe-hpd-implementors+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.