Closed brettesler-ext closed 1 month ago
PAWG agreed to keep this in ballot; will assume negative votes will be received and at least more description and explanation needed.
In addition to the extant ballot issues FHIRIG-172 The extension AHPRA Profession Details is not conceptually defined and FHIRIG-173 The extension AHPRA Registration Details is not conceptually defined.
New issue submitted to JIRA.
FHIRIG-240 Why are Ahpra registration details and Ahpra profession details mutually exclusive concepts? Why are Ahpra registration details and Ahpra profession details mutually exclusive? Or at least entirely separate qualification concepts?
AU Base Practitioner is enforcing this constraint but it is unclear to me why a single qualification instance with both extensions present is undesirable and are not two different dimensions of information given the definition of data elements.
The result is either that you never supply registration and profession details or there are two instances of a qualification with same identifier but each have different extensions.
Reporter:Danielle Tavares-Rixon Email:danielle.tavares-rixon@csiro.au
Briefly discussed at PAWG:
F2F comment - this needs some content development with respect to explaining all concepts completely in the specification. Need input from key users PCA or others?
Moved to Jira https://jira.hl7.org/browse/FHIR-46327
Review extensions and Practitioner.qualification usage - this is primarily a concern of PCA project and may take out of AU Base / simplify this.