Ta routering update examples e overdracht

[bramwesselo]

This pull request introduces significant improvements to the modeling and documentation of routing requests between healthcare providers using FHIR resources. The changes enhance support for both FHIR R4 and STU3 (eOverdracht) scenarios, add new example data, clarify technical agreement documentation, and update resource definitions and codes for better semantic interoperability.

FHIR resource and profile enhancements:

• Added two new extensions, TaskSTU3Location and TaskSTU3HealthcareService, to support specifying location and healthcare service references in FHIR STU3 Tasks, improving compatibility with eOverdracht requirements.
• Introduced new example instances of NlGfLocation for Organization 3, and updated HealthcareService examples to use Dutch realm codes and reference these locations, increasing realism and alignment with Dutch care profiles. [1] [2]

Routing and workflow documentation updates:

• Major rewrite and clarification of the routing technical agreement (routing.md), including updated scope, principles, definitions, and detailed descriptions of directory lookup, ServiceRequest, Task, and HealthcareService roles. Added documentation for new STU3 extensions and provided example XML for eOverdracht Task. [1] [2] [3]

Terminology and code system updates:

• Added alias for $v3-RoleCode to support new location and service type codes, ensuring correct terminology usage in examples and profiles.
• Updated ServiceRequest and Task examples to use Dutch care profile codes instead of SNOMED transfer codes, reflecting local requirements and improving semantic accuracy. [1] [2]

Published version of this branch: https://build.fhir.org/ig/nuts-foundation/nl-generic-functions-ig/branches/TA-routering-update-examples-eOverdracht/routing.html

[jorritspee]

looks good to me. do you also need a review from a FHIR-pro like @gasperr?

[bramwesselo]

After some nice, fundamental thoughts on references in the eOverdracht-Task (discussion with @SimonVeldhuijzen) , we came to the following 'generic' statement on references:

"A reference SHOULD have a meaningful identifier to support matching to existing, real-world entities by data users in other organizations.
This should prevent situation where data users have to resolve their own entities/resources (Location, Healthcareservice, Organization, Patient) at other data holders. A 'meaningful identifier' could be a BSN, URA or the Author-assigned-identifier that's required in the NL-GF-resourceprofiles."

Last commit translated the generic statement to one specific for the eOverdacht-Task.

[roald]

Some styling suggestions and fixes for typos. Also within the involved parties the 1 should be removed from VZVZ.