This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "FHIR Workflow Minutes CC 20160404"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "{{subst::FHIR Workflow Template for Minutes}}") |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Attendees== | ==Attendees== | ||
| − | * | + | *Lloyd McKenzie (chair/scribe) |
| − | * | + | *Jose Costa Teixeira |
| + | *Oliver Krauss | ||
| + | *Reinhardt Egelkraut | ||
| + | *Scott Robertson | ||
| + | *Thomas Lukasik | ||
| + | *John Hatem | ||
| + | *Chris Grenz | ||
| + | *Eric Haas | ||
| − | == | + | ==Minutes== |
| − | + | Motion to approve minutes of March 21: Scott/John: unanimous | |
| − | == | + | ==Composite orders== |
| − | + | *Talked through several composite order scenarios. | |
| + | *No-one could come up with a use-case where an explicit electronic record of the 'parent' order was necessary. | ||
| + | *Existing approach of being able to link leaf-level orders to a protocol/order set and to a parent/requisition identifier seems sufficient | ||
| + | *Will wait to confirm the existing approach of treating parents as 'virtual' until Bob Dieterle is able to join the call. | ||
| + | ==Definition resources== | ||
| + | *Looked at the OrderSet and Protocol resources. | ||
| + | *Will try to have Bryn join a future call to work through the order set resources. | ||
| + | *Some confusion about the name "OrderSet" - common usage is to use that term to refer to a collection of patient-specific orders (what we're currently calling a 'composite' order). The resource is only for definitions | ||
| + | *Discussion about whether we should expand the scope of the various 'request' resources to also support use within OrderSet/Protocol | ||
| + | **General feeling was "no" - needed data elements are different, permissions are different, etc. | ||
| + | **Alternatives are: | ||
| + | ***Create parallel resources, one for each "request" resource | ||
| + | ***Create a "smaller" number of protocol resources | ||
| + | ***Merge the domain-specific activity attributes into the generic OrderSet/Protocol resource | ||
| + | *Discussion about scope - can we cover non-clinical protocols? | ||
| + | *Will continue discussion when | ||
==Adjournment== | ==Adjournment== | ||
Revision as of 00:04, 6 April 2016
FHIR Workflow Conference Call 3:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)
Return to FHIR Workflow Minutes
Agenda
- Approve Minutes Prior Meeting on mm/dd
Attendees
- Lloyd McKenzie (chair/scribe)
- Jose Costa Teixeira
- Oliver Krauss
- Reinhardt Egelkraut
- Scott Robertson
- Thomas Lukasik
- John Hatem
- Chris Grenz
- Eric Haas
Minutes
Motion to approve minutes of March 21: Scott/John: unanimous
Composite orders
- Talked through several composite order scenarios.
- No-one could come up with a use-case where an explicit electronic record of the 'parent' order was necessary.
- Existing approach of being able to link leaf-level orders to a protocol/order set and to a parent/requisition identifier seems sufficient
- Will wait to confirm the existing approach of treating parents as 'virtual' until Bob Dieterle is able to join the call.
Definition resources
- Looked at the OrderSet and Protocol resources.
- Will try to have Bryn join a future call to work through the order set resources.
- Some confusion about the name "OrderSet" - common usage is to use that term to refer to a collection of patient-specific orders (what we're currently calling a 'composite' order). The resource is only for definitions
- Discussion about whether we should expand the scope of the various 'request' resources to also support use within OrderSet/Protocol
- General feeling was "no" - needed data elements are different, permissions are different, etc.
- Alternatives are:
- Create parallel resources, one for each "request" resource
- Create a "smaller" number of protocol resources
- Merge the domain-specific activity attributes into the generic OrderSet/Protocol resource
- Discussion about scope - can we cover non-clinical protocols?
- Will continue discussion when
