This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

2016-08-29 Rx Conf Call

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Attendees

  • Melva Peters (Chair)
  • Lee Suprenant
  • John Hatem
  • Michelle Miller
  • Scott Robertson
  • Bryn Rhodes
  • Ken Sinn

ListServ / Zulip Discussions

Pharmacy September Workgroup meeting draft agenda

  • Draft Agenda is available for review and comment.
  • Pharmacy will meet Monday thru Thursday September 19 - 22
  • arrange FHIR discussions around topics
    • Mappings
    • Terminology
    • Examples

FHIR Maturity

  • Current Maturity status
    • spreadsheet has been submitted - MedicationOrder, MedicationStatement and Medication - MM2
    • review of MedicationStatement Maturity
Completed Action:  followup with FMG to see if we need to do anything else
Action:  add time for discussion in Baltimore for other resources
Completed Action:  add implementers for MedicationStatement as it has been part of Argonaut - Marla
  • no further needed for the resources to get them to MM2
  • Discuss in Baltimore about getting to MM3

FHIR Discussion Items

Action:  this spreadsheet will be removed - if necessary, a new spreadsheet will be created based on the STU3 ballot
Action:  Melva will clean up dropbox

CDS Request

  • Background
    • The CDS Work Group as part of reconciling ballot comments for the CQF-on-FHIR Ballot has created a resource in FHIR that can be used to describe "templates" for intent resources like MedicationOrder, ProcedureRequest, etc. The resource is called ActivityDefinition (https://hl7-fhir.github.io/activitydefinition.html).
    • As part of specifying the template for a MedicationOrder, we need to be able to specify the dosageInstruction and dispenseRequest elements. Rather than copying the element from the MedicationOrder resource definition, we are planning on defining a DosageInstruction and a DispenseRequest type that we could reference, rather than duplicating the maintenance of those elements.
    • Do you have any questions or concerns with this approach? The initial step is just to define the data types based on the MedicationOrder structure and will not involve any changes to the MedicationOrder resource.
    • Pharmacy WG has some concerns about the fact that CDS may be creating
  • July 18 Update
    • more info see CDS Pharmacy FHIR request
    • suggestion that a datatype may be an option but that it will not be done it time for the freeze for STU3 - would need special permission to put a substantive change in to the release
    • continue to discuss on our teleconferences and possibly include time on the agenda for Baltimore
  • Information from Lee for discussion on August 29
    • Regarding my specific interest, I'm sure you are familiar with the NCCN Chemotherapy Order Template use case by now. We have implemented an initial version of an authoring system and I plan to bring it to Baltimore. The current implementation actually exports Order Templates as a FHIR Bundle that contains a PlanDefinition.
    • For the individual "Regimen Entries" of the order template, we are currently using the ActivityDefinition resource because MedicationOrder was deemed to be a 'Request' resource and so we were advised not to use it in this 'Definitional' space.
    • The problem with this is that ActivityDefinition is very generic and so it doesn't have many of the dosageInstruction fields that you have in the MedicationOrder (a number of which I even helped to get added). This means that we must use extensions for all that. This might be OK, but there are also further complications such as the issue I opened at How to support definitional MedicationOrder with multiple dosageInstruction? (10433)
    • Basically, because we'd like to specify at least the core details of a MedicationOrder in the defined fields of the ActivityDefinition resource (fields like 'quantity' and 'product'), it means that we need to add an extra level of nesting into our structure so that each DosageInstruction becomes its own ActivityDefinition. In this case, I have concerns about the fact we are making our already complicated structure one level deeper and also, more importantly, I'm not sure that it is feasible for anyone to implement the logic that would be necessary to 'place' those dosageInstruction ActivityDefinitions into a single MedicationOrder.
    • One proposal for dealing with this is for Pharmacy to define a re-usable type for 'dosageInstruction' that could be re-used (hopefully with 0..* cardinality) in the ActivityDefinition resource in order to better align ActivityDefinition with MedicationOrder and also keep the two in sync going forward. My understanding is that this was discussed with Bryn in the past, but unfortunately I missed that conversation.
    • An alternative idea that I had is to have a separate resource that is specifically focused on MedicationOrder 'templates' in the definitional space (although it seems I'm the only one advocating for that).
    • Anyway, I'm sure Bryn has his own take on all of this, and so I'm mostly just trying to join the conversation to see where things are headed in order to align our implementation to the likely direction of the spec (or chose not to). For example, if we know there is broad support for introducing dosageInstruction to the ActivityDefinition, then we can define extensions that look just like it...or we could even help to get that change into the FHIR build and hopefully we could use some generated stubs in our implementation.
    • Discussion - August 29th -
      • CDS - PlanDefinition Resource - good fit for a regimen or plan definition that can relate multiple medication orders together
      • MedicationOrder is not really intended to be an order template - originally Pharmacy had thought that MedicationOrder could be used for the definitional space
      • Have had a previous discussion about requirement for a DosageInstruction datatype that could be reused
      • CDS want to reuse specifications from domain areas - such as MedicationOrder
        • may need more than DosageInstruction datatype - possibly DispenseRequest
      • proposal from CDS - take DosageInstruction element - and make it re-usable - make it a datatype - would see a single element in the resources
      • Task is to take DosageInstruction - turn it in to a "type" - this didn't cause an issue for Pharmacy, but there is a potential concern about the other content of a MedicationOrder that may or may not be included in a PlanDefinition
      • would be helpful to create a pharmacy specific example that would show where the different data elements exist - there is a low risk suicide example that could be used
      • Concern raised by Lee: when it comes time to place the order - there is a mapping that needs to happen from generic activityDefinition to medicationOrder - from generic concepts to specific concepts.
Action: example from Lee to help to elaborate - with current build and desired outcome - Lee to also include what should be included if there was a DosageInstruction type.  Also include other changes that are needed - some extensions are included that might need to be considered by Pharmacy WG
Action: Do a map from the PlanDefinition and ActivityDefinition to the MedicationOrder - concrete examples
Action:  Based on feedback and further discussion from examples - Pharmacy will create DosageInstruction and DispenseRequest types - needs a motion and vote - could pilot it with other resources

Renaming MedicationOrder to MedicationRequest Discussion

  • Email received July 4, 2016 from Lloyd
    • The FHIR Workflow task force has been working for almost the past year to come up with guidelines to improve the consistency of how workflow (the process of requesting something to happen and then reporting the results of that request) are handled across all FHIR resources. Its scope encompasses clinical, administrative and financial resources. We've had relatively broad participation in the bi-weekly calls and very broad participation in the face-to-face sessions at HL7 WGMs.
    • While the project is still testing the recommendations using a variety of use-cases, we are sufficiently confident in the stability of the recommendations, that we voted last week to request all impacted work groups to apply the relevant changes to their resources for inclusion as part of the upcoming STU 3 ballot.
    • We recognize that the timelines for making this occur are tight. In the event that a work group cannot make the changes requested, we invite them to, at minimum, provide an implementation note highlighting the intention to adjust each affected resource to align with the workflow pattern and to include a hyperlink to the "workflow.html" page. (This page doesn't exist yet, but it will.)
    • We also recognize that not all of these recommendations will fall into the 80% for all resources. Work groups are asked to do the following for each recommendation:
      • Apply the recommendation from the FHIR workflow task force as part of core
      • Create extensions to support those data elements that are relevant but not commonly used by the domain
      • Indicate that they feel the recommendation should not apply to their resource by posting an email to the fhirworkflow list server indicating why they believe a given recommendation is inappropriate for a given resource.
      • ((The list of resources believed to be impacted by the FHIR Workflow recommendations are provided in the attached spreadsheet. Most of the listed resources are categorized as either a "request" - a resource that indicates a specific intention for something to occur; or an "event" - a resource that represents a specific occurrence that could have been done in response to a request. A few event resources are marked with a question-mark as it's not clear whether they are requested or not. It's possible that one or more resources in the spreadsheet that were not categorized should in fact be listed as a "request" or an "event". Feel free to apply the workflow recommendations to uncategorized resources if you feel they should apply.
    • In addition to these categorizations, the workflow project calls for the Order and OrderResponse resources to be removed. They are superseded by Task. As well, the scope of ProcessRequest and ProcessResponse should be revised to leverage Task for the purpose of requesting the current state of a resource and for soliciting a state change.
    • The recommendations are as follows:
      • Request
      • Add a note in the introduction section that the resource is a "request" resource from a FHIR workflow perspective, including a hyperlink to workflow.html#request.
      • Rename the resource to [xxx]Request instead of [xxx]Order (request resources are used for plans, recommendations and proposals, not just orders
      • Ensure all of the data elements present in the "request" pattern document (attached) are present in the resource, keeping consistency with the naming where possible and adapting definitions to reflect domain-specifics
      • Ensure the status element for the resource has a terminology that aligns with the "request" states as well. (Note that all statuses related to fulfillment progress are now handled by Task.)
    • Event
      • Add a note in the introduction section that the resource is an "event" resource from a FHIR workflow perspective, including a hyperlink to workflow.html#event.
      • Ensure all of the data elements present in the "request" pattern document (attached) are present in the resource, keeping consistency with the naming where possible and adapting definitions to reflect domain-specifics
      • Ensure the status element for the resource has a terminology that aligns with the "request" states as well. (Note that all statuses related to fulfillment progress are now handled by Task.)
  • From January 25 meeting: Lloyd shared the proposal to rename all request type resources to <resource>_Request. Seeking consistent name for all resources and term that encompasses larger swath of types of requests. An element beneath the tag instance would state the particular request, such as 'order'. This impacts the current Pharmacy Medication Order FHIR resource.
 Completed Action: Rx WG to discuss to determine if we agree or not. - agreed (with no vote) to comply with change but not needed to be made yet, per Lloyd
  • Lloyd suggested that we hold off on making the change, if we decide to make the change. Wait for FHIR Infrastructure group to workout additional details before we make the changes. May have impact on how other data elements are name or included.
  • Discussion: If we agree to the change, we'll need to review the description and other content for our resource to ensure that it accurately reflects the usage. This type of change will mean changes for implementers and it may not be as intuitive for implementers.
    • No decision to be made today. Will consider on a future call
    • Discussion - July 11 Meeting
      • John described the change proposed - we can alias resource to include MedicationOrder
      • Moved by John - seconded by Marla to add note to introduction section to Medication Order Add a note in the introduction section that the resource is a "request" resource from a FHIR workflow perspective, including a hyperlink to workflow.html#request. and to add an implementation note highlighting the intention to adjust each affected resource to align with the workflow pattern and to include a hyperlink to the "workflow.html" page. - 7/0/0 Carried
      • Moved by John - seconded by Marla to add note to introduction section to Medication Dispense, MedicationAdministration, MedicationStatement - Add a note in the introduction section that the resource is a "request" resource from a FHIR workflow perspective, including a hyperlink to workflow.html#request. and to add an implementation note highlighting the intention to adjust each affected resource to align with the workflow pattern and to include a hyperlink to the "workflow.html" page. 7/0/0 Carried
  • Discussion on August 22
    • John has done a mapping for MedicationOrder to RequestLogicalModel - See spreadsheet File:Mapping Med Order to Workflow Request logical model.xlsx
      • change name to MedicationRequest and add alias to MedicationOrder
        • identifier - recommend do not change cardinality
        • definition reference - add
        • basedOn reference to request - assume that we should add, but John to ask Lloyd for clarification
        • replaces - reference to request - we need to discuss this - we have priorPrescription - not sure if this is the same - should we have both - John to ask Lloyd for clarification
        • status - need to have a discussion with workflow team about codes - question about cancelled and stopped
          • change our cardinality to be 1..1
        • stage - add
        • reference to patient - change cardinality to 1..1
        • reference to Encounter/Episode of care - do not change
        • occurence - leave as is for now
        • requester - we only reference practitioner - need to consider if we should expand
        • performerType and performer - need to consider - may be related to who should administer the medication

FHIR Workflow Meetings Status

  • Discussion of Pharmacy Workflow Mockup (John)
    • No Workflow meetings the week of August 8th. Meetings expected to resume week of August 15th.
    • Workflow meetings have been cancelled for the past week

Other business

  • Meeting on September 5, 2016 - should we cancel due to Labour Day? Yes - will be cancelled
  • EventHistory vs Provenance
    • see email from Jenni - made some good points against Provenance - need to discuss further in Baltimore

Next meeting

  • Monday, September 12, 2016
  • Agenda
    • review examples from Lee and vote on creating new types
    • addition of DUR to Pharmacy resources
    • Tracker Items - multiple dosage instructions, multiple routes
Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2016-08-29_Rx_Conf_Call&oldid=124956"