smart-on-fhir / smart-scheduling-links

Clinical Appointment Slot Discovery
28 stars 15 forks source link

Add Schedule eligibility requirements to fix #17 and #14 #25

Open jmandel opened 3 years ago

jmandel commented 3 years ago

@Mr0grog would love a quick review, as well as some thoughts about what codes we might want to define (I took inspiration from your examples in #14).

GUI commented 3 years ago

Oh, I missed eligibility in some of my initial feedback, but this is another great topic.

To chime in here, while eligibility is maybe less of an issue now, I'd largely echo @Mr0grog's feedback. I'm particularly wondering if there's some way to represent the age eligibility rules, since that seems like maybe one thing that will still be more relevant as things perhaps open up to other age groups (eg, 18+ for Moderna, 16+ for Pfizer, and those ages could change over time as new age groups get approvals). Although, if additional age groups get rolled out nationally, then maybe this also isn't as relevant on a per-schedule basis, but there may still be whacky age-based rules for certain things like Rob was indicating.

Earlier on, I'd also say there were all sort of eligibility rules that might be difficult to represent in a structured way. For example, on certain weekend days, Rite Aid only allowed educators to book appointments in certain cities and states. But this wasn't clearly shown on their booking website, so I know this caused a lot of confusion for users. Maybe most of these harder to categorize eligibility rules are behind us, but do you all foresee any need to represent these types of things in the future? If so, any ideas on how to structure that with this spec? Or would there be some other alternative way to represent this with free-form text to handle some of the stranger edge-cases (obviously not great for filtering, but at least the information might be presentable)?

cooperthompson commented 3 years ago

Were we still planning on merging this in?

jmandel commented 3 years ago

This general mechanism is OK; the challenge is that we don't have a clear vocabulary of eligibility criteria that would be widely supported / interoperable. @cooperthompson are there items from this list that you're looking at as high-priority?

cooperthompson commented 3 years ago

There are some of our customers looking for age-based eligibility. Like 12-17 vs. 18+.