Create BeRelatedPerson

[bdc-ehealth]

• identifier

• relationshiptype (is "wettelijke vertegenwoordiger" a relationshiptype or a practitionertype (cd-hcparty?) - mantelzorger?

• at RSB/RSW, this ('trust person', 'legal representative') is a RelatedPerson and also has impact on the access level.

Create a logical model

[bdc-ehealth]

Also look at: https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179166-implementers/topic/FHIR.20relationship.20bet.2E.20a.20patient.20and.20a.20representative

[bdc-ehealth]

relationship to the patient: CodeableConcept family-relationships, and acquaintances (friend, neighbour, ...)
role of the person: CodeableConcept: legal representative, mantel-zorger, ... (should this be in another resource, e.g. Careplan), maybe limited in time.

for elements that are common with patient, can we use the same approach as for patient?

[KarlienHL7Belgium]

update 15 May WG: goal is to make a logical model for Be Related person.
Do we need other elements in this logical model @ all ?

[bdc-ehealth]

WG: we will start by creating a logical model based on these elements.

[KarlienHL7Belgium]

relationship has become mandatory, is unknown part of the valueset: @bdc-ehealth to check and confirm

[KarlienHL7Belgium]

we start working on it as from 19 Feb 2025 in our WG

[bdc-ehealth]

Vitalink indicates the need of:

1. BeAddress
2. SSIN number (also for pseudonymization
3. Name

[bdc-ehealth]

@mlambot : can you add your documentation here?

[bdc-ehealth]

@fdetaver suggests to keep access rights separated from this profile.
Dominiek Leclercq states that both aspects are important, but should be kept separate.
José suggests a completely different valueset for access rules.
@stvb states that Related Person is very much like PractitionerRole, in that sense that there can be many RelatedPerson instances that apply to the same Patient/Person resource. The identifier is not the identifier of the resource, but of the physical person.

[bdc-ehealth]

We can leave the relationshiptype open, we allow all codesystems. We do not create separate slice at this moment for legal vs social/emotional

[bdc-ehealth]

WG: we add communication language optionally to the logical model (which will result in a MS)

[HanneVuegen]

In https://build.fhir.org/relatedperson.html a distinction is made between personal relationship and role:

• https://terminology.hl7.org/6.2.0/ValueSet-v3-PersonalRelationshipRoleType.html
• https://build.fhir.org/valueset-relatedperson-relationshiptype.html

This is however the continuous build, I can see some advantages to pre-adopting but also a possible risk.
What is good practice, @costateixeira ? What does the workgroup think about this?