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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention 20110223

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

HL7 project team meeting, 23 February, 2011, 12:00 PM ET


Back to Pressure Ulcer Prevention


Patty Greim Jay Lyle Y
Ioana Singureanu John Carter
Catherine Hoang Moon-Hee Lee
Mimi Haberfeld Donna DuLong
Charlie Selhorst Sherri Simons
You-Ying Whipple Y Holly Miller Y
Walter Suarez Susan Matney
Elaine Ayres Y Nancy Collins Y


  1. Agenda check
  2. Formats
    1. Define the question in the class or in the enumeration
    2. Definition as noun phrase
    3. Readability: color code observables vs chart (& chart terms)--or as decided by instance?
    4. View HTML
  3. Diagram and question review
    1. Point out the question list, available from the main project page
    2. Observation model
    3. model packages


  1. We'll put the question in the class.
  2. Noun phrases work
  3. We'll publish HTML as well as a pdf
  4. We need to direct our subject matter experts to the question list
  5. Observation package
    1. Remove Role
  6. Adherence
    1. High-level values are too ambiguous (e.g., unwilling, unable)
    2. Need to know
      1. Did the patient adhere, yes or no
      2. If not, specifically why
    3. Also some semantic overlap between general and specific terms: if there is an "unable to adhere - lack of comprehension", then does "unable to adhere" mean only those cases in which lack of comprehension was not the problem, or could it mean we just didn't get to that level of discovery in some cases?
    4. We need adherence per intervention, not just for the whole plan
    5. We don't need Actors--this just confuses responsibility (?)
      1. How would you represent a patient who refuses to be turned? The Provider is the actor, but should not be held responsible.
      2. Family member reporting on question will be represented as Observation.Source (not actor)
  7. Medication
    1. A medication may have multiple impacts
    2. No 'effect' observation required; the medication creates a risk for the effect irrespective
    3. Make sure we get the latest LOINC workgroup lists
    4. Run the list by the HL7 Pharmacy group
  8. Nutrition
    1. Where did 'excessive boniness' come from?
    2. Why do we need a subjective weight evaluation?
    3. Hydration: the status is hydrated or not (or perhaps mild, severe dehydration).
    4. What are the factors? Are they methods for assessing status? Ancillary things to measure?
  9. Device
    1. Change 'peg' to something more general -- G-tube or J-tube

Action Items

ID Item Who Due Status Notes
11 Determine whether modeling tool can support vocabulary metadata in a readable format Jay 2/21 Closed We can use HTML to provide easy reference
10 Identify clinical experts we want to review the ballot Team 2/14 IP
9 Send out schedule with model packages assigned to dates; request for team to address specific questions Jay 2/10 closed
3 Confirm workgroup sponsorship from Patient Care or Clinical Interoperability Council or both Patty and Holly 2/9 closed Working on scheduling time with Stephen Chu (1/20)

Meeting for 2/9, per Wm Goossen (1/24). Accepted in PC 2/9

4 Find out from Moon Hee how we can encourage or support more participation Patty closed Time change seemed to work well
5 Contact Audrey Dickerson to clarify how IHE specifications relate, affect us Holly closed Met; FSA to be considered in model
6 Contact SMEs to coordinate clinical input into the model Holly Closed
8 Find a better time for this meeting Jay, Holly Closed Moved to 3 pm ET
7 Ensure 2/9 PC meeting time is sent to KP participants Jay Closed HL7 info sent 2/1
1 please send feedback on the project scope statement All 1/17 Closed
2 meet to clarify the model boundaries Jay and Donna 1/11 Closed We recommend that the conceptual scope be “Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment” and "Intervention," two key focuses of the KP-VA model.


ID Issue Recorded Status Notes
2 No official HL7 project sponsor 1/10 Closed See action item 3, in process (1/12)

PC probably; needs meeting to confirm (1/19); approved 2/9

1 Model boundaries unclear 1/10 Closed See action item 2, to be confirmed (1/12)

Clarified in meeting (1/19)