Problem

Separate problem-list-item and encounter-diagnosis

/Condition?subject=${patientId}${API_RESOURCE_TAG} --> /Condition?subject=${patientId}&category=encounter-diagnosis${API_RESOURCE_TAG}

Problem

Is Claim resource the better way to modelize GHM (Groupe Homogène de Malade) ? Is it better to use an Encouter attribute instead of the Claim resource ?

Add Cohort360 screenshots to link MS attributes to cohort360 ui

See
https://www.hl7.org/fhir/capabilitystatement.html#requirements

For now PatientConsent is indicated as the RefusedResearchConsent profile, the patient data access is permitted per default.

What do you think of that @tevariou ?
Do we need to indicate that the research consent has been granted ?
Or we continue considering that the access is permitted by default if there is no RefusedConsent associated to a patient ?

Description

Sophie @Peltier10 noticed that both Condition.encounter and Encounter.diagnosis are MustSupport attributes, which is redundant information, and causes issues with our current ETL (references can't be bound if ressource does not exist).

Considering that in most cases, diagnoses are declared administratively at the end of a patient's admission (for billing purposes), the diagnosis attribute will not be present systematically in the Admissions table. What do you think about keeping Condition.encounter as MustSupport, and making Encounter.diagnosis optional?

According to FHIR spec:

The specific meaning of "Must Support" for the purposes of a profile SHALL be described in the ElementDefinition.definition, the general StructureDefinition.description or in other documentation for the implementation guide that includes the profile.

https://www.hl7.org/fhir/profiling.html#mustsupport