Difference between revisions of "2012-07-02 Rx Conf Call"
Hugh Glover (talk | contribs) |
Hugh Glover (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
==List Discussions== | ==List Discussions== | ||
| − | *FHIR | + | ===FHIR and Medication Statement=== |
| + | *Lloyd was particularly concerned that introducing the "mood" concept as a FHIR resource would result in other FHIR resources having different meanings for their attrirbutes depending on the mood attribute they were associated with - this is contrary to one objective of FHIR which is to have clear definitions. | ||
| + | *There was a lengthy discussion of Medication Statement. This exposed some differences in understanding of the concept of Medication Statement where Lloyd argued Medication Statement was clearly understood to be a summary of multiple events and inherently different to an administration event and that the two should never be mixed. Others viewed an administration event as something that could be the subject of a medication statement as well. Lloyd was concerned this would lead to two different URIs in FHIR for the same event. Lloyd emphasised that the Business Use Case should take prescedence over any theoretical basis for for identifying resources. | ||
| + | *Tom proposed that identification of ownership and identity of information could make the distinction between Medication Statement and other types of events easier to establish. | ||
| + | *The discussion will continue next week. | ||
==Medication Profile PSS== | ==Medication Profile PSS== | ||
Latest revision as of 12:00, 3 July 2012
|
Related Links |
Attendees
Hugh Glover (Chair), Julie James (Scribe), Marco Demarmels, Lloyd McKenzie, Tim McNeil, John Hatem, David Hay, Scott Robertson, Tom de Jong, Rob Hausam
List Discussions
FHIR and Medication Statement
- Lloyd was particularly concerned that introducing the "mood" concept as a FHIR resource would result in other FHIR resources having different meanings for their attrirbutes depending on the mood attribute they were associated with - this is contrary to one objective of FHIR which is to have clear definitions.
- There was a lengthy discussion of Medication Statement. This exposed some differences in understanding of the concept of Medication Statement where Lloyd argued Medication Statement was clearly understood to be a summary of multiple events and inherently different to an administration event and that the two should never be mixed. Others viewed an administration event as something that could be the subject of a medication statement as well. Lloyd was concerned this would lead to two different URIs in FHIR for the same event. Lloyd emphasised that the Business Use Case should take prescedence over any theoretical basis for for identifying resources.
- Tom proposed that identification of ownership and identity of information could make the distinction between Medication Statement and other types of events easier to establish.
- The discussion will continue next week.
Medication Profile PSS
PSS divided into two stages as suggested by Ed Tripp; a) defining what a “Medication Profile” means (based on use cases), b) identifying requirements and information structures to support the communication of the information. The timings have also been updated. Scott asked to include NCPDP in the Synchronization with other SDOs section.
The motion for the adoption of the revised PSS to be sent on to the SD for approval was proposed by John Hatem; seconded by Scott Robertson. Vote: Against : 0 Abstain: 2 In Favour 7
IHE and Rx division of labor/ Medication Documentation Deleiverables & Scope
Some clarification has taken place and now everyone seems to be on the same page. A TC has been scheduled for a small core group to take the work forward initially (23 July). There are IHE groups with some overlap, so this may mean a slightly larger core group. It is important to be clear who is doing what to avoid duplication of effort.
Pharmacy OOC Dates
The IHE meeting is scheduled for 23-24 October. Hugh has an action to take this to TSC and doesn’t want to trip over the IHE dates.
CS Comparison to RX content
Hugh explained therre is a difference in approach between Pharmacy and Clinical Statement; Pharmacy has generally left attributes in its DMIM in case anyone did need to use it; some of these have stayed in RMIMs. This is in contrast to CSMP, who have attributes present only if there is a use case for them.
The detailed items of discussion were noted on the spreadsheet which will be circulated.
Out of Stock Vocabulary
- There is general agreement that the whole second part of the definition of the pharmacy concept makes no sense (the no substitution part for which we have no possibility to negate substitution). It was therefore suggested on the list that this poorly defined pharmacy concept should be deprecated.
- It is possible to have a polyhierarchy in HL7 vocabulary so it would be possible for the currently PHER-owned “Out of stock” concept (defined as “There was no supply of the product on hand to perform the service”) to have parents of both the current ActNoImmunizationReason and SubstanceAdminSubstitutionReason.
- No one with any objection to going forward to request to Wendy to deprecate the Pharmacy concept and to ask to have the PHER concept have multiple parents.
Julie will action this.
TSC Elections
We can vote for a co-chair for our steering division; there is one candidate who is Melva Peters.
In the absence of any voices to the contrary, Hugh is happy to take on the role of teller and seeking feedback via the list.
AOB
- None
Next meeting
- Monday, July 9th at 4pm Eastern Daylight Time
