BeOrganisation: do we accept too much?

[bdc-ehealth]

This is an example from the FHIR-a-thon preparations:

    "resourceType": "Organization",
    "id": "10371",
    "meta": {
      "versionId": "1",
      "lastUpdated": "2024-09-27T09:46:32.642+00:00",
      "source": "#HtDz7dX3sJUzzQPf",
      "profile": [ "https://fhir.nexuzhealth.com/standards/fhir/StructureDefinition/NxhOrganization",
    "https://www.ehealth.fgov.be/standards/fhir/core/StructureDefinition/be-organization" ]
    },
    "identifier": [ {
      "use": "usual",
      "system": "https://fhir.nexuzhealth.com/standards/fhir/NamingSystem/kws/amalthea/basZiekenhuisDef/ziekenhuisCode",
      "value": "UZL"
    }, {
      "use": "usual",
      "system": "https://fhir.nexuzhealth.com/standards/fhir/NamingSystem/kws/amalthea/basExploitatie/exploitatie",
      "value": "322",
      "period": {
        "start": "1900-01-01T00:00:00+01:00",
        "end": "9999-12-31T23:59:00+01:00"
      }
    }, {
      "use": "usual",
      "system": "https://fhir.nexuzhealth.com/standards/fhir/NamingSystem/kws/amalthea/basExploitatie/exploitatie",
      "value": "945",
      "period": {
        "start": "1900-01-01T00:00:00+01:00",
        "end": "9999-12-31T23:59:00+01:00"
      }
    } ],
    "active": true,
    "type": [ {
      "coding": [ {
        "system": "https://fhir.nexuzhealth.com/standards/fhir/CodeSystem/kws/pm/hl7InScenario/scenario",
        "code": "FM",
        "display": "Full master"
      } ]
    } ],
    "name": "UZ Leuven",
    "alias": [ "UZ Leuven" ]
  }

It does not contain a single identifier known on the Belgian federal level, and it still validates according to the Belgian BeOrganisation profile. Is this desirable?

[bdc-ehealth]

#draft# for elements in the core package (which are part of a registry such as rijksregister, kruispuntbank ondernemingen, ...) a belgian identifier must be mandatory

[HanneVuegen]

• should we also make the name of an organisation mandatory (this is in line with the practitioner

[bdc-ehealth]

WG: the workgroup suggests to make profiles with a narrower scope (e.g. containing more specific identifiers) for the cases in which they are really required (such as exchange with the vaults, etc... This applies for all core resources, not only Organisation. We will need some clear communication/definition to make the distinction between the two levels. The higher could for instance also be used for internal communication in hospitals, or other settings.

[bdc-ehealth]

WG: it is not the goal to use profiles from other nationalities/countries to handle citizens from those countries in Belgian systems (even internally in hospitals, e.g.)