PA ConCall 20090225

Return to Patient_Administration

Logistics

   Call is scheduled for 1.0 hour
   Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
   Please consult [1] for your local times
   Phone Number: 770-657-9270
   Participant Passcode: 986210#

Agenda

1. Review HL7 Canada proposals for next harmonization meeting
2. Reconsider CMET ballot item PA_CMET_neg
3. Reconsider Appointment CMETS - ballot all For Comment Only in 2009May
4. Proposal: add InformRequestActType Concept Domain
5. Time permitting: discuss other proposals:
   • Proposal: Person Registry, add AdministrativeObservation parameter,
   • Proposal: Patient Registry, add Find Candidates query parameters.
   • Proposal: add Find Appointments Query to Scheduling domain

Attendees

Jean Ferraro, Gregg Seppala, Irma Jongneel, Jay Zimmerman, Wendy Huang, Patrick Loyd, Leslie Flaherty

Minutes

1. Approve Agenda

• Motion: approve agenda for call
  • Vote: For - 4; Against - 0; Abstain 0

2. Review Canadian proposals for harmonization

• Proposal: addInformRequestActType Concept Domain

There were originally 4 harmonization proposals – currently only bringing one forward.

Patrick reviewed the proposal – information that will be retained in the provider registry related to the specific provider.

Norman had some questions that were addressed for Summary and relevant artifacts - informRequest.code added to the recommendation details

Discussion that this is a document routing function not provider registry function – is there a similar value set? This might come up at harmonization. Perhaps CDA has done something similar with document routing.

Was the original intent of this object to be for documents or messages? There are no attribute level descriptions when this was originally defined by Personnel Management.

PA has considered documentType – the intent of this proposal is not to limit to documents. The wording ‘document type’ should not be in the definition.

The discussion was to table or vote on with the understanding that the changes will be made. The wording ‘document type’ should not be in the definition. The discussion about this will need to be included in the proposal

• Motion: Approve harmonization proposal with changes required and bring forward to April harmonization meeting
  • Vote: For - 5; Against - 0; Abstain - 0

3. Reconsider CMET ballot items

• Gregg asked work group to reconsider disposition of negative comment against R_Patient_universal. A review of the V3 Guide indicates that ballot comment was valid and the CMET should be revised by relaxing several constraints and balloted again.

• Motion: Reconsider and find ballot comment persuasive and submit intent to ballot

4. Reconsider decision made on 2/11/09 call to ballot A_Appointment identified-confirmable as Normative and A_Appointment universal as For Comment Only in May 2009

• It will be confusing to balloters and committee unless all are included. This is a change from the motion that was passed at the last call.

• Motion: Ballot all Appointments CMETS as For Comment Only in May ballot
  • Vote: For - 5; Against - 0; Abstain - 0

Future Work Items

1. Community based Health Care proposal from Yvonne
2. Rene has work and requirements for Appointments query

Open Action Items

1. Confirm process with publishing for changing existing CMET model with different id as identifiable-confirmable - Gregg
2. Create new universal CMET - Gregg

Closed Action Items

1. Add Canadian harmonization proposals to Wiki for review before next call- Jay/Wendy - by 2/23
2. Schedule recurring conf calls - Jean - by 2/13