This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "2017-08-17 Patient Care FHIR Call"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 193: | Line 193: | ||
Harmonization proposal is about CDA value set and it uses SNOMED, not FHIR. SNOMED codes have a hierarchy, so Rob agrees with Emma that the hierarchy lives in the SNOMED coding system. | Harmonization proposal is about CDA value set and it uses SNOMED, not FHIR. SNOMED codes have a hierarchy, so Rob agrees with Emma that the hierarchy lives in the SNOMED coding system. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
| − | SNOMED hierarchy differs from FHIR's code system hierarchy. For example: recurrent episode is not a child of active. | + | SNOMED hierarchy differs from FHIR's code system hierarchy. For example: recurrent episode is not a child of active in SNOMED. |
<br> | <br> | ||
Revision as of 21:28, 17 August 2017
Contents
Meeting Information
| Patient Care FHIR Resources Conference Call Location: Conference Call |
Date: 2017-08-17 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 | ||
| Dave Carlson | VA | ||
| X | Stephen Chu | The Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA) | |
| Evelyn Gallego | EMI Advisors LLC | ||
| Eric Haas | Haas Consulting | ||
| X | Rob Hausam | Hausam Consulting LLC | |
| Laura Heermann-Langford | Intermountain Healthcare | ||
| X | Emma Jones | Allscripts | |
| Russ Leftwich | InterSystems | ||
| X | Tony Little | Optum 360 | |
| X | Jay Lyle | Ockham Information Services LLC, VA | |
| Russell McDonell | Telstra Health | ||
| Lloyd McKenzie | Gevity (HL7 Canada) | ||
| Larry McKnight | Cerner | ||
| X | Michelle M Miller | Cerner | |
| Lisa Nelson | Life Over Time Solutions | ||
| Viet Nguyen | Lockheed Martin, Systems Made Simple | ||
| M'Lynda Owens | Cognosante | ||
| Mike Padula | The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia | ||
| Craig Parker | Intermountain Healthcare | ||
| X | Joe Quinn | Optum | |
| Simon Sum | Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics | ||
| Iona Thraen | Dept of Veterans Affairs | ||
| Serafina Versaggi | Dept of Veterans Affairs | ||
| X | Floyd Eisenberg | ||
| Quorum Requirements Met: yes | |||
Agenda
Agenda Topics
- Agenda review
- Approve previous meeting minutes 2017-08-10_Patient_Care_FHIR_Call
- Motion: Stephen/Rob
- Prior Action Item Follow-up
- Problem Status Value Set
- gForge change request
Supporting Information
- 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
- Maintain QA checklist
Minutes
Prior Action Item Follow-up
Problem Status Value Set
Floyd's question is whether the codes are mutually exclusive (e.g. inactive and remission; active and relapse)?
Stephen mentioned that FHIR has a hierarchy as follows:
- Active The subject is currently experiencing the symptoms of the condition or there is evidence of the condition.
- Recurrence The subject is experiencing a re-occurence or repeating of a previously resolved condition, e.g. urinary tract infection, pancreatitis, cholangitis, conjunctivitis.
- Relapse The subject is experiencing a return of a condition, or signs and symptoms after a period of improvement or remission, e.g. relapse of cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, bipolar disorder, [psychotic relapse of] schizophrenia, etc.
- Well-Controlled The subject's condition is adequately or well managed such that the recommended evidence-based clinical outcome targets are met.
- Poorly-Controlled The subject's condition is inadequately/poorly managed such that the recommended evidence-based clinical outcome targets are not met.
- Inactive The subject is no longer experiencing the symptoms of the condition or there is no longer evidence of the condition.
- Remission The subject is no longer experiencing the symptoms of the condition, but there is a risk of the symptoms returning.
- Resolved The subject is no longer experiencing the symptoms of the condition and there is a negligible perceived risk of the symptoms returning.
Floyd said the harmonization didn't reflect the hierarchy. Emma said that the coding system reflects that (not the value set).
Harmonization proposal is about CDA value set and it uses SNOMED, not FHIR. SNOMED codes have a hierarchy, so Rob agrees with Emma that the hierarchy lives in the SNOMED coding system.
SNOMED hierarchy differs from FHIR's code system hierarchy. For example: recurrent episode is not a child of active in SNOMED.
gForge Change Requests Backlog (did not discuss)
Aug 10 + WGM: Joint discussion with Pharmacy, OO
- GF#12673 How to handle HCT/TP
- GF#12993 Please Create a NonMedicationAdministration object or an Administration object
- GF#13047 Add DosageInstructions to Procedure
- GF#12676 Guidance request for GP SOAP in FHIR (Alexander Henket) -
- https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/implementers/topic/ClinicalImpression
- PC, SD - possibly Thurs Q2
- Patient Care WGM agenda: PC_Sept_2017_WGM
Backlog Rady to Discuss
- GF#12163 Update payload URL to lead to a real file (Guillaume Rossignol)
Medium Backlog
- GF#12509 CareTeam participant (Michelle Miller)
- Feedback from LHS, and LHS continues to meet and discuss
- CareTeam.participant.role (existing) 0..* - need to update definition of role (since it mentions responsibility) Example: PCP - close to finalizing the value set
- CareTeam.participant.function 0..* (new) - Example: PT, Wound Care - close to finalizing the value set
- CareTeam.participant.specialty is no longer needed -- instead, get from Practitioner
- GF#12633 Split Procedure into Procedure and ProcedureStatement (Lloyd McKenzie)
- Zulip chat asking for implementer feedback: https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/implementers/topic/Procedure.20vs.20ProcedureStatement
- Dave commented that there is relevance for ProcedureStatement in context of CarePlan activities (Activity Statements where the activity is a procedure)
- GF#10028 Careplan: Provide ability to specify patient and/or provider preferences (Emma Jones)
- meet need with a profile for preference on the observation resource. Requirements are a preference category (nutrition, medication, care), the preference priority (high/medium/delayed from C-CDA) and with elements of expressor and recorder.
- This profile would not be developed for this release cycle
- GF#13140 logical definition of care-plan-category value set may require realignment with SCT changes (Matthew Cordell)
- pending SNOMED proposal: https://confluence.ihtsdotools.org/display/cmag/Care+plans
- Rob said he would follow up on the status of the SNOMED proposal
Low Backlog
- GF#10635 QA 5a: Resource references exist in both directions for Condition and ClinicalImpression (Michelle Miller)
- ClinicalImpression is not mature enough to resolve this issue. Ask MnM for an exemption on the QA checklist (re: Condition having a circular reference with ClinicalImpression)
- Add note: "A known issue exists with circular references between Condition and ClinicalImpression, which is due to the low maturity level of ClinicalImpression. The Patient Care work group intends to address this issue when ClinicalImpression is considered substantially complete and ready for implementation"
- GF#11173 CarePlan needs support for reviews - 2016-09 core #327 (Stephen Chu)
- Tracking of reviews and plans for reviews is something that applies to many resources, not just CarePlan (e.g. protocols, standing orders, long term care admissions, etc.). This is something probably best handled by "Task" but will require a fair bit of analysis and discussion with other work groups to agree on approach. Defer to R4. Consider transfer to OO who owns Task
Adjourn
Adjourned at <hh:mm am/pm> <timezone>.
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.
