ITI sex and gender profiling

[snichols001]

The HL7 September Ballot includes the following ballot item "HL7 Cross Paradigm Implementation Guide: "Sex and Gender Representation, Release 1". This introduces v2 segments, FHIR extensions and CDA updates for encoding sex and gender.
IG: https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/fhir-gender-harmony/branches/main/index.html
Use Cases: https://confluence.hl7.org/display/VOC/Cross+Paradigm+Use+Cases

This work item will likely entail:

1. Inventory of ITI transactions that profile administrative sex
2. Analysis of related Volume 1 content in the context of Gender Harmony Use Cases
3. Supplement or several CPs

[JohnMoehrke]

Should we address all IHE profiles that could be impacted?
PIX, PIXm, PDQ, PDQm, PIMR, XCPD
do we touch PIXv3, PDQv3?

do we add an option that helps guide readers to using the HL7 gender harmony IG methodology?

How does a community handle having participation from organizations that handle gender differently, or not at all. What happens when one org is using the gender harmony methods, and another is not?

what is the impact to Privacy from the use of gender harmony? Especially within a community.

[JohnMoehrke]

will continue to wait for HL7 output

[lukeaduncan]

Create a gender harmony CP to be processed on the usual CP call.

For at least FHIR, v2, XCPD, and Document Entry Source Patient Info

Intention is to have some boilerplate text about if you use gender harmony to use these methods.

[lukeaduncan]

CP was created. Has been submitted: CP-ITI-1297

[JohnMoehrke]

see the latest Patient profiling in us-Core (ci build) for recommended way to pull in gender harmony. I think we should do similar.
https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/US-Core/StructureDefinition-us-core-patient.html