Thank you to those who attended the IPS call on 29 Oct where I raised some concerns on the IPS guidance for representing Empty Sections & Known Absence of Data. This was well attended by AU PS members and the feedback from the IPS Project enabled us to progress the related AU PS ballot reconciliation. The minutes for this call are at https://confluence.hl7.org/spaces/PC/pages/391647902/IPS+2025-10-28 . We have arranged another IPS call at a AU friendly time with some AU relevant topics for this Wednesday, 19 Nov 09:00 (SYD, MEL) / 08:00 (BNE). These include: FHIR-52278 Clarify guidance on representing no known medications Continue topic from 28 Oct call, including updates from AU and Pharmacy call FHIR-53260 Clarify prohibition of entered-in-error on status elements FHIR-53171 Clarify medication[x] element definition wording in MedicationRequest (IPS) and MedicationStatement (IPS) Connection details are available in this zulip chat #IPS > IPS Project call days/times @ 💬 or the HL7 Concalls Calendar https://www.hl7.org/concalls/CallDetails.cfm?concall=80807 . Note that this is scheduled in US Eastern Time for Tue Nov-18 05:00 PM, but this is Wednesday morning our time. Looking ahead, there will be another IPS Call next Wednesday 26 Nov at the same time. This is the first of regular fortnightly calls scheduled at this time allowing us to attend regularly over our summer. Unfortunately, this does clash with our Connectathon the following fortnight.

speaking of connectathon - are the IG artifacts (StructureDefs, terminology etc) hosted on a server somewhere?

and is there going to be a kick off session for the Patient summary track?

The IG artefacts will be available on the Sparked FHIR Server; more detail in this thread: #australia > Sparked FHIR Server . Kick off call: 01 Dec 2025 12:00 PM Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney | 11:00 AM Brisbane Join Zoom Meeting: https://hl7-au.zoom.us/j/82127077562 AU Patient Summary Track - 2025-12 Confluence page: https://confluence.hl7.org/spaces/HA/pages/391192391/AU+Patient+Summary+Track+-+2025-12

This query returns no results - have I got the correct server? https://smile.sparked-fhir.com/aucore/fhir/DEFAULT/StructureDefinition?url=http://hl7.org.au/fhir/ps/StructureDefinition/au-ps-allergyintolerance

And I note that there are no ValueSets or CodeSystems on that server. What I'm hoping to do is to be able to validate an IPS bundle. I can always upload the artifacts from the IG to my own hapi server - but if there's already one with them loaded then I won't bother...

@David Hay depending on how the AU PS packages where installed, the server may not be exposing the profiles. You could try using $validate and see if it responds with an error. If it is installed, it would still be the September Connectathon snapshot 0.4.0-draft. @Kyle Pettigrew can you confirm the AU PS package status on the server?

Will do. Is it straightforward to expose the profiles & other resources?

Currently 0.3.0 PS is installed on aucore of the smile.sparked FHIR server (with detailed info on what’s configured at https://confluence.hl7.org/spaces/HAFWG/pages/256515291/Sparked+Development+FHIR+Server ) I will check with the team tomorrow for approval of loading 0.4.0 (likely) and then update the thread when it’s up

Moved sparked server conversation here #australia > AU PS Profiles on Sparked Test Data Server

Thank you to those who attended the IPS call on 19 Nov (AU time) where we continued the discussion related to No known current medications. From my perspective, the feedback we got related to the approach that we have chosen to take in AU PS was positive. The minutes, zoom recording and transcription for this call are available at https://confluence.hl7.org/spaces/PC/pages/403869878/IPS+2025-11-18 . Our next IPS call at a AU friendly time is Wednesday, 26 Nov 09:00 (SYD, MEL) / 08:00 (BNE). The topics I will proposing to be discussed are: FHIR-53260 Clarify prohibition of entered-in-error on status elements FHIR-53171 Clarify medication[x] element definition wording in MedicationRequest (IPS) and MedicationStatement (IPS) FHIR-53114 Populate/handle Obligations for elements with multiple cardinality Look for to having your support on this call. As mentioned, the IPS calls will now be at the AU friendly time fortnightly. However, the next scheduled call will clash with the Melbourne Connectathon on 10 Dec, so we'll need to consider how we adjust for this, if at all.

IPS call starts in 30 mins, Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89197612486?pwd=elBROGxwblNXa0hOdFhOc0VxOHZpUT09

For those that are attending the HL7 AU FHIR Connectathon in Melbourne and want to attend the IPS Call tomorrow morning at 8AM, we will be in the Breakout Room if you would like to join me and a few others. I will be running through a clarification session around must support obligations on elements with multiple cardinality such as Patient.identifier and CodeableConcept.coding. Should be exciting call :wink:

Call is on now: Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89197612486?pwd=elBROGxwblNXa0hOdFhOc0VxOHZpUT09

For those interested in attending the HL7 IPS calls, the final call for the year is tomorrow morning, 24 Dec 2025, at 09:00 (SYD, MEL) / 08:00 (BNE). Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89197612486?pwd=elBROGxwblNXa0hOdFhOc0VxOHZpUT09 I am hoping to continue the clarification topic of Populate/handle Obligations for elements with multiple cardinality . Danielle and I have some proposed guidance that we are seeking international community feedback on.

This call is on in 5 minutes

Happy New Year! To kick off the new year towards our journey to Release 1 of AU Patient Summary, we have an HL7 IPS call tomorrow morning, 7 Jan 2026, at 09:00 (SYD, MEL) / 08:00 (BNE). Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89197612486?pwd=elBROGxwblNXa0hOdFhOc0VxOHZpUT09 I am expecting to continue the clarification topic of Populate/handle Obligations for elements with multiple cardinality. I hope to have some draft guidance to be considered for inclusion in the next revision of the IPS IG, which will provide some framework for us to use in AU PS Release 1. Looking forward to having your input and support on this call.

Just a reminder about the FHIR IPS Call tomorrow morning, 21 Jan 2026, at 09:00 (SYD, MEL) / 08:00 (BNE). Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89197612486?pwd=elBROGxwblNXa0hOdFhOc0VxOHZpUT09 . I am hoping to continue the Populate/handle Obligations for elements with multiple cardinality topic, in particular review the feedback we have received from the FHIR Infrastructure group and propose a change request for a new "populate if relevant" obligation code.

IPS call on now

The FHIR IPS Call is on again this week, Wednesday morning, 4 Feb 2026, at 09:00 (SYD, MEL) / 08:00 (BNE). Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89197612486?pwd=elBROGxwblNXa0hOdFhOc0VxOHZpUT09 . We had a couple of Jira issues that came out of our clarification regarding Obligations on elements with multiple cardinality that were discussed at last week's HL7 WG Meeting, FHIR-55396 and FHIR-55398 . I hope that we will be able to get a summary on the resolution of these and look at how this can be applied to the IPS profile elements with multiple cardinality. Hopefully we can get agreement on whether each element has a SHALL:populate-if-known obligation of 'all', 'at least 1', or use case specific 'context' (e.g. in a summary record we provide only the latest reaction, not a full history of reactions). Hope to see some of you there.

A reminder that the FHIR IPS Call is on tomorrow (Wed) morning, 18 Feb 2026, at 09:00 (SYD, MEL) / 08:00 (BNE). Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89197612486?pwd=elBROGxwblNXa0hOdFhOc0VxOHZpUT09 .

As daylight savings has changed in the US this call is now an hour earlier for Australia. Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89197612486?pwd=elBROGxwblNXa0hOdFhOc0VxOHZpUT09 Time: 8:00AM Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra | 7:00 AM Brisbane

In the FHIR IPS call tomorrow morning we will look to: present on an assessment of compatability between US PCS, AU PS, and IPS discuss joint plans for testing AU PS at the upcoming international Connectathon in Rotterdam report back on the HL7 AU Connectathon and shared topics that were covered in breakouts

I assume the PS Labelling and Application Feature Assertion topic gets brought forward ? Briefly, as there seems to be ample material in that related AU PS Hot Topics document.

We do have ample material! If there is time we will cover in this call. If not, I will propose that this is a major topic of the next call so we can walk through the context of how we got here and the proposed recommendation on what to do.

IPS call on now: Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89197612486?pwd=elBROGxwblNXa0hOdFhOc0VxOHZpUT09

In today's IPS call we discussed the introduction of a section of Encounters in US PCS and presented on assessment of compatability between US PCS, AU PS, and IPS. I will look to get the report back on the HL7 AU Connectathon and in particular a summary and next steps for identifying a jurisdictional patient summary.

@Kari Heinonen in the meantime, here is the AU Patient Summary TDG & Connectathon Track Report Back I had prepared for today's IPS call, which I may present next fortnight, although there may be some plans to go deeper. Happy to provide further context if you need. IPS-AU Call 18 Mar 2026.pdf

Thank you. I feel like asking few questions (as usual) :smile: though they might belong more to category of "future details to be clarified in due course" Au PS Hot Topics document 'Labelling an AU PS' by Jim Steel. What does line on page 5 "Maybe the code shouldn’t be the actor. Maybe it should be the intent." mean ? Personally I was pondering should PS additionally also indicate intended (primary) Consumer actor (i.e. "what kind of Consumer did Producer plan data to be consumed by"). Is quoted line about something related ? To universally identify PS "variants", don't we need some global registry, CodeSystem, etc for these FeatureDefinition "codes" referred in that extension ? I mean, how does e.g. Consumer in EU otherwise know what http://hl7.org.au/fhir/ps/FeatureDefinition|au-ps-actor-producer means ? Seeing that (or then again, noticing it's missing) indicates something just for AU PS/Realm Consumer ? Of course, I guess, FeatureDefinition can be queried through App Feature Framework and/or chased after looking into particular profile and IG stated in resource (?) ... assuming these are available online ... thinking I must be missing something What About: adding Composition.section to allowed usage context for feature-assertion ? That would then allow explicitly indicating currently "unclear" functional patterns about how that particular section (and entries) are gathered from source data. As afaik one can't associate Provenance to particular section directly ...

@Jim Steel

AU PS Hot Topics document 'Labelling an AU PS' by Jim Steel. What does line on page 5 "Maybe the code shouldn’t be the actor. Maybe it should be the intent." mean ? Personally I was pondering should PS additionally also indicate intended (primary) Consumer actor (i.e. "what kind of Consumer did Producer plan data to be consumed by"). Is quoted line about something related ?

I'd be reluctant to indicate intended consumer. I'm a big fan of interoperability operating on an open-world assumption

observation that the code/canonical we were putting in the feature assertion extension was the same as used by the ActorDefinition Actually, it is not the ActorDefinition canonical - but does allude to a link between the FeatureDefinition and the Actor ( http://hl7.org.au/fhir/ps/FeatureDefinition/au-ps-actor-producer vs http://hl7.org.au/fhir/ps/ActorDefinition/au-ps-actor-producer . And this was just an example that Grahame threw to together quickly - and retrospectively he may have suggested that it is unlikely to be directly related. So in summary, I agree that we will need to define this FeatureDefinition in the AU PS IG to be referenced if this approach is adopted.

@Kari Heinonen To universally identify PS "variants", don't we need some global registry, CodeSystem, etc for these FeatureDefinition "codes" referred in that extension ? I mean, how does e.g. Consumer in EU otherwise know what http://hl7.org.au/fhir/ps/FeatureDefinition|au-ps-actor-producer means ? This is an interesting point, but probably no different to AU defining a SCT-AU code for 'AU Patient Summary' type. I suspect it is a matter of consumer App having a known set of IPS IGs it knows or cares about, particularly the local IG, and hence able to assume additional expectations, otherwise fall back to just being a Plain Ol' IPS.

@Kari Heinonen There are Provenance element and path extensions that you could use to reference a specific section https://build.fhir.org/provenance.html#element . Would your use case need section level "features", or could you use a pre-coodinated set of features that support the aggregate of these functional patterns? I do get where you are going, I know the ADHA are looking at parameters to indicate the range of data to be included on a per section basis - this would enable these preferences to be reflected in the result.

I think that we're not really interested in fine detail at this point. Just a global expectations thing: is this an Australian PS or not?

Jim Steel said : I'd be reluctant to indicate intended consumer. I'm a big fan of interoperability operating on an open-world assumption Yeah, I see the point. On the other hand, abstract concept of "relevant PS content" has been very much brought forward (to prevent PS becoming a massive data dump of everything, from Producer perspective "just-in-case"; Or maybe "pre-empt legal consequences by not leaving anything out"). And I think relevance for given exchanged dataset being something defined by both Producer and Consumer actor side expectations/obligations combined.