This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "2017-03-09 Patient Care FHIR Call"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Agenda) |
|||
| Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
** [http://build.fhir.org/extension-procedure-causedby.html extension-procedure-causedby] -- beef up description | ** [http://build.fhir.org/extension-procedure-causedby.html extension-procedure-causedby] -- beef up description | ||
** [http://build.fhir.org/extension-condition-criticality.html extension-condition-criticality] -- no value set binding | ** [http://build.fhir.org/extension-condition-criticality.html extension-condition-criticality] -- no value set binding | ||
| + | ** [http://build.fhir.org/flag.html flag] -- questionable QA feedback | ||
| + | *** As “flag” has numerous usages in FHIR, this particular use should somehow be distinguished. Might it be a “clinical flag?” | ||
| + | *** A flag is typically presented as a label in a prominent location in "the a paper chart or visual rendering of an electronic" record to notify the clinician of the potential issues | ||
| + | *** given the volume of information frequently found in patients' records and the potentially serious consequences of losing sight of some facts, this redundancy is deemed appropriate -- Deemed by whom? HL7? We don’t make this kind of policy. Suggest “deemed important by the users of an information system.” | ||
| + | *** Patient has large dog at home -- This doesn’t seem like a credible example of the semantics for a flag, even under the “other” category. | ||
| + | *** The Flag resource is sometimes known as "patient notes" -- This is definitely beyond the scope of QA but there seems to be a serious conflict here between the notion of flags as a highly concise representation of information preselected for its urgency or relevance to workflow and a more general topic of patient notes, which could be wide ranging, couldn’t they? | ||
| + | ** [http://build.fhir.org/goal.html goal] - HgbA1c level =<5.6% -- Is this a clinically credible example? Yes | ||
=== gForge Change Requests === | === gForge Change Requests === | ||
Revision as of 23:05, 6 March 2017
Contents
Meeting Information
| Patient Care FHIR Resources Conference Call Location: Conference Call |
Date: 2017-03-09 Time: 5-6:30pm ET | ||
| Facilitator | Michelle M Miller | Note taker(s) | Michelle M Miller |
| Attendee | Name | Affiliation
| |
| Elaine Ayres | NIH/Department of Clinical Research Informatics | ||
| Pushpalatha Bhat | |||
| Stephen Chu | The Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA) | ||
| Evelyn Gallego | EMI Advisors LLC | ||
| Eric Haas | Haas Consulting | ||
| Rob Hausam | Hausam Consulting LLC | ||
| Laura Heermann-Langford | Intermountain Healthcare | ||
| Emma Jones | Allscripts | ||
| Russ Leftwich | InterSystems | ||
| Tony Little | Optum 360 | ||
| Jay Lyle | Ockham Information Services LLC, VA | ||
| Russell McDonell | Telstra Health | ||
| Lloyd McKenzie | Gevity (HL7 Canada) | ||
| Larry McKnight | Cerner | ||
| Michelle M Miller | Cerner | ||
| Lisa Nelson | Life Over Time Solutions | ||
| Viet Nguyen | Lockheed Martin, Systems Made Simple | ||
| M'Lynda Owens | Cognosante | ||
| Craig Parker | Intermountain Healthcare | ||
| Joe Quinn | Optum | ||
| Simon Sum | Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics | ||
| Iona Thraen | Dept of Veterans Affairs | ||
| Serafina Versaggi | Dept of Veterans Affairs | ||
| Quorum Requirements Met: yes | |||
Agenda
Agenda Topics
- Agenda review
- Approve previous meeting minutes
- Motion: <moved>/<seconded>
- STU3 Action Items
- gForge change request
Supporting Information
STU 3 Timeline
From FHIR_Ballot_Prep
- Sun. Feb. 19 Publication substantive resource freeze
- Sun. Feb 26 Publication total freeze
- Mon. Feb 27 QA period opens
- Tue. Feb 28 FMM QA spreadsheet updated for all WG resources
- Sun. Mar. 13 QA period closes
- Sun. Mar. 20 All QA applied
The "following week" STU 3 is published!
FHIR Maturity Levels
Maturity Levels Level 3 requires the artifact has been verified by the work group as meeting the DSTU_2_QA_guidelines and has been subject to a round of formal balloting; has at least 10 implementer comments recorded in the tracker drawn from at least 3 organizations resulting in at least one substantive change
Target FMM levels for STU3 publication
- AllergyIntolerance = 3
- Condition = 3
- Procedure = 3
- CarePlan = 1
- Goal = 1
- CareTeam = 1
- FamilyMemberHistory = 1
- ReferralRequest = 1
- Flag = 1
- Communication = 1
- CommunicationRequest =1
- ClinicalImpression = 0
- Linkage = 0
STU3 Action Items
- Review Tracker Issues - https://docs.google.com/a/lmckenzie.com/uc?id=0B285oCHDUr09Mzh3b09rMFhEV1E
- Resolve QA Warnings to have resource FMM > 0
- Resolve QA Information messages to achieve FMM = 3
- Update QA checklist for resources that we want to be FMM = 3
- Apply changes (all "substantive" changes have been applied, except workflow patterns)
Minutes
STU3 Outstanding Actions
- Update QA checklist for resources that we want to be FMM = 3
- QA Topics
- extension-procedure-causedby -- beef up description
- extension-condition-criticality -- no value set binding
- flag -- questionable QA feedback
- As “flag” has numerous usages in FHIR, this particular use should somehow be distinguished. Might it be a “clinical flag?”
- A flag is typically presented as a label in a prominent location in "the a paper chart or visual rendering of an electronic" record to notify the clinician of the potential issues
- given the volume of information frequently found in patients' records and the potentially serious consequences of losing sight of some facts, this redundancy is deemed appropriate -- Deemed by whom? HL7? We don’t make this kind of policy. Suggest “deemed important by the users of an information system.”
- Patient has large dog at home -- This doesn’t seem like a credible example of the semantics for a flag, even under the “other” category.
- The Flag resource is sometimes known as "patient notes" -- This is definitely beyond the scope of QA but there seems to be a serious conflict here between the notion of flags as a highly concise representation of information preselected for its urgency or relevance to workflow and a more general topic of patient notes, which could be wide ranging, couldn’t they?
- goal - HgbA1c level =<5.6% -- Is this a clinically credible example? Yes
gForge Change Requests
Adjourn
Adjourned at <hh:mm am/pm> <timezone>.
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.
