It’s niggling me that we’re doing a lot of work around ‘GP Connect’ including naming profiles and archetypes with that prefix - what happens when we want to expand the use of these standards outside of General Practice?
Is it that we’ve simply accepted that GP Connect will be the generic name to be used for connectivity, wherever it is used in the NHS, or is the intention that separate assets would be created for wider use?
It feels like a relevant question when I’m currently considering the use of the new standards in Urgent and Emergency Care etc.
I agree that it creates a significant risk that the work isn’t adopted for other health settings where it could be of use, simply because the names are prefixed ‘GP-*’. @RKavanagh may be able to throw more light on this, but I suspect that because the work is an output from GPSoC IM2 it gets labelled as such to make it easier to explain to project stakeholders .
Whilst it would be better to have sensible names, I think that if the profiles can be used for U&EC then you should adopt them ‘as is’ - focus on implementing services to benefit patients. At some point in the future the odd naming becomes a UK interoperability anecdote …
Yes - I do agree - and the naming in itself is not really a blocker (I’m sure we’re still using standards prefixed “npfit-xxxx” somewhere!).
I guess my concern is around ensuring that it is nothing more than naming, and that the links with the GPSoC programme will hinder the development of the standards for wider use than just GP.
Wondering about the same point. See Acute API - Appointment.Type and DocumentReference.class
More of a comment on the acute side but overlap with GPConnect.