This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "FHIR Workflow Minutes CC 20190204"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "{{subst::FHIR Workflow Template for Minutes}}") |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
[[:Category:FHIR Workflow Minutes|Return to FHIR Workflow Minutes]] | [[:Category:FHIR Workflow Minutes|Return to FHIR Workflow Minutes]] | ||
==Agenda== | ==Agenda== | ||
| − | *Approve [[FHIR | + | *Approve [[FHIR Workflow_Minutes_CC_20180128| Minutes Prior Meeting on 01/28]] |
==Attendees== | ==Attendees== | ||
*Lloyd McKenzie (chair/scribe) | *Lloyd McKenzie (chair/scribe) | ||
| − | * | + | *Craig Newman |
| + | *Andrea Pitkus | ||
| + | *Joe Lamy | ||
| + | *Jose Costa Teixeira | ||
| + | |||
| + | Arrived late | ||
| + | *Josesph Quinn | ||
| + | |||
==Minutes Approval== | ==Minutes Approval== | ||
| − | *Motion to approve [[FHIR | + | *Motion to approve [[FHIR Workflow_Minutes_CC_20180128| Minutes Prior Meeting on 01/28]] - Craig/Jose: 3-0-1 |
| + | |||
| + | ==Actions== | ||
| + | *Lloyd will talk to Grahame & David H. about when is a good time to start ExampleScenario work | ||
| + | *Lloyd will talk to Grahame about when is a good timeframe to move workflow alignment into main build | ||
| + | **Not done yet - will try to do so at the WGM | ||
| + | *Jose will pass on current state about getting PlantUML content into Maven | ||
| + | **Still on Jose's plate | ||
| + | *Will evaluate in early Jan. whether we want to hold the workflow session this round | ||
| + | **Future | ||
| + | *Jose will explore how to deal with local files when editing an ExampleScenario | ||
| + | **Talked w/ Grahame and has it figured out | ||
| − | == | + | ==Lab Scenario== |
| − | + | *Looked at Lab example scenario as completed to date | |
| + | *Andrea indicated that it would not be typical to have distinct service requests for each sub-test. Typically each piece of equipment just gets the CBC code and knows what sub-tests to execute on a particular piece of equipment | ||
| + | **Process | ||
| + | ***1 panel comes in | ||
| + | ***Multiple specimens are collected | ||
| + | ***Each specimen may route to multiple machines/analyzers | ||
| + | ***Each analyzer may run multiple tests on one specimen | ||
| + | ***LIS correlates the results from the various analyzers and organizes them as appropriate for the panel and may calculate additional results based on other results | ||
| + | ****Each specimen is assigned an identifier | ||
| + | ****Analyzer looks up the specimen identifier to see what overall order code it’s associated with | ||
| + | ****Based on the specimen type and the overall panel, the analyzer performs the specific subset of tests relevant for that device within the overall panel | ||
| + | *If one of the sub-tests is not completed, it'll require a whole new lab order in order to re-perform that test | ||
| + | Will continue discussion next week | ||
==Adjournment== | ==Adjournment== | ||
| + | 15:01 Eastern | ||
Revision as of 23:00, 4 February 2019
FHIR Workflow Conference Call 3:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)
Return to FHIR Workflow Minutes
Agenda
- Approve Minutes Prior Meeting on 01/28
Attendees
- Lloyd McKenzie (chair/scribe)
- Craig Newman
- Andrea Pitkus
- Joe Lamy
- Jose Costa Teixeira
Arrived late
- Josesph Quinn
Minutes Approval
- Motion to approve Minutes Prior Meeting on 01/28 - Craig/Jose: 3-0-1
Actions
- Lloyd will talk to Grahame & David H. about when is a good time to start ExampleScenario work
- Lloyd will talk to Grahame about when is a good timeframe to move workflow alignment into main build
- Not done yet - will try to do so at the WGM
- Jose will pass on current state about getting PlantUML content into Maven
- Still on Jose's plate
- Will evaluate in early Jan. whether we want to hold the workflow session this round
- Future
- Jose will explore how to deal with local files when editing an ExampleScenario
- Talked w/ Grahame and has it figured out
Lab Scenario
- Looked at Lab example scenario as completed to date
- Andrea indicated that it would not be typical to have distinct service requests for each sub-test. Typically each piece of equipment just gets the CBC code and knows what sub-tests to execute on a particular piece of equipment
- Process
- 1 panel comes in
- Multiple specimens are collected
- Each specimen may route to multiple machines/analyzers
- Each analyzer may run multiple tests on one specimen
- LIS correlates the results from the various analyzers and organizes them as appropriate for the panel and may calculate additional results based on other results
- Each specimen is assigned an identifier
- Analyzer looks up the specimen identifier to see what overall order code it’s associated with
- Based on the specimen type and the overall panel, the analyzer performs the specific subset of tests relevant for that device within the overall panel
- Process
- If one of the sub-tests is not completed, it'll require a whole new lab order in order to re-perform that test
Will continue discussion next week
Adjournment
15:01 Eastern
