2014-01-22 PA WGM Minutes

Wednesday January 22, 2014

• Return to PA January 2014 WGM
• Return to PA Main Page

Wednesday Q1

HL7 Patient Administration Meeting Minutes Location: Seguin		Date: 2014-01-22 Time: Wednesday Q1
Facilitator	Line Saele	Scribe	Alex de Leon
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Line Saele	HL7 Norway
X	Irma Jongeneel	HL7 Netherlands
X	Alexander Henket	HL7 Netherlands
X	Brian Postlethwaite	HL7 Australia
X	Christian Hay	GS1
X	Iryna Roy	Gordon Point Informatics, Canada
X	Alexander de Leon	Kaiser Permanente, USA
Quorum Requirements Met (Chair + 2 members): Yes

Agenda

Agenda Topics

• Approve Cambridge Minutes
• Plan next meetg/draft agenda
• Harmonization Proposals
• V2 Work

Supporting Documents

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
The week's agenda was reviewed by the WG:
We will keep the same FHIR quarters. There will also an open session on Q4 on Monday.
After reviewing the minutes we noted action items:
Action: Update the DMP dealing with the changes to the shared D-MIM with patient care. Responsible: Alex de Leon
Action: Submit NIB for v3 Scheduling content to assure it is on the next ballot cycle. Responsible: Line
Action from Wed Q1 from last WGM: Brian talk to Austin about services directory specification that was done through OMG. This was done. Now we need to create a project within PAWG for submission of this shared specification with OMG. Brian will be given the link to the template for a Project Scope Statement. The OMG specification will then be the ballotable deliverable. He will do his best to fill this out, to be reviewed during telcon. Responsible: Brian
Irma moves to approve the minutes from the last WGM. Brian seconds.
Vote: 3/0/0
The WG moved on with agenda item for this quarter by considering v2 work and harmonization proposal.

Meeting Outcomes

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items .

Wednesday Q2

HL7 Patient Administration Meeting Minutes Location: Seguin Conference Room		Date: 2014-01-22 Time: Wednesday Q2
Facilitator	Line Saele	Scribe	Alex de Leon
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Line Saele	HL7 Norway
X	Irma Jongeneel	HL7 The Netherlands
X	Barry Guinn (Remotely - Skype)	EPIC
X	Daniel Loewenstein(Remotely - Skype)	EPIC
X	Alex de Leon	Kaiser Permanente
X	Alexander Henket	HL7 The Netherlands
X	Brian Postlethwaite	HL7 Australia
X	Christian Hay	GS1
Quorum Requirements Met (Chair + 2 members): Y

Agenda

Agenda Topics

• Ballot Reconciliation - Encounter Topic

Supporting Documents

• Reconciliation Spreadsheet

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
The WG continued with the Encounter ballot comments. Barry and Daniel attended via Skype.

1. 9 question. Considered – question answered. Encounter code is CWE that means it an be extended to fit specific implementation needs. Also Encounter Priority code can be used to specify encounter priority.
   

1. 10 and #11 when looking at the event type def and message def for Encounter Appointment Scheduled Notification . the new encounter appointment interactions do not appear to be replacements for he scheduling interactions. What was the long-term plan for these interactions vs those in the scheduling domain. Answer: The scheduling domain is a framework which can be used for scheduling within another domain. The Encounter appointment structures are specifically for encounter scheduling. The question from the balloter points to whether this should be separate topics within the specification or should they be joined together.
   

Irma noted that if the Scheduling topic is intended to be a framework by which other domains can use scheduling concepts. What probably confuses is that along with the Domain Message Information Model (DMIM) and the Refined Message Information Model (RMIM). Perhaps what the PAWG should do is keep the Domain Message Information Model to define the framework, but not delve deeper into RMIMs. Perhaps the PAWG should either remove RMIMs from the scheduling topic. Other option is to remove the scheduling constructs from the encounter topic. Persuasive with mod.

1. 12 It would help to have more clear definitions as to what constitutes a revision vs. a reschedule. The WG continued to discuss when one message would be used rather than the other. The balloter wondered if the receiving system would have to accept both. Examples were reviewed as to when one would be used rather than the other. It seemed a good idea, after reviewing the topic and examples, to provide some guidelines. It seems that the general idea is that if changes do not affect the time, location or scheduled resource change, a revise message would be used. Otherwise, if these are affected in some way, then a reschedule message is used.
   

Action: Update the descriptions for both interactions; Encounter Appointment Revised Interaction and the encounter appointment reschedule notification interaction to include this guidance. Responsible: Alexander Henket.

The WG block voted for the above items.
Vote: 6/0/0

The WG continued with the next negative on the ballot. The comment was on the HL7 website without a ballot comment spreadsheet.

Steve Eichner
Systems Analyst
Texas Department of State Health Services
P.O. Box 149347, Mail Code 2053
Austin, TX 78714
Vote: Negative
Comment: “In reviewing the material, there does not seem to be the inclusion of other patient (legal) representatives or actors in the room, although there is capacity for changing clinical staff. This may be problematic when the patient is a minor or otherwise does not have medical decision-making authority.”

The WG considered this so reviewed the encounter event RMIM, to see what construct would support this. While the WG has not been approached with this need as of yet, which does not seem to be supported by the consent constructs within the Encounter Event RMIM, the WG will suggest to the balloter that the consent construct be used for their use case. If this does not meet their needs, then the WG will entertain a proposal from the submitter to update the current RMIM with suggested elements to meet a specific use case.

Meeting Outcomes

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items .

Wednesday Q3

HL7 Patient Administration Meeting Minutes Location: Live Oak Conference Room		Date: 2014-01-22 Time: Wednesday Q3
Facilitator	Irma Jongeneel	Scribe	Alex de Leon
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Line Saele	HL7 Norway
X	Irma Jongeneel	HL7 Netherlands
X	Brian Postlethwaite	HL7 Australia
X	Christian Hay	GS1
X	Alexander Henket	HL7 The Netherlands
X	Alex de Leon	Kaiser Permanente
Quorum Requirements Met (Chair + 2 members): Yes

Agenda

Agenda Topics

• Interdependent Registries

Supporting Documents

• None

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached: This quarter had been reserved for a joint session with the SOA and Patient Care work groups, hosted by the Patient Care Work Group. Please refer to the meeting minutes for that work group.

Meeting Outcomes

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) .

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items .

Wednesday Q4

HL7 Patient Administration Meeting Minutes Location: Seguin Conference Room		Date: 2014-01-22 Time: Wednesday Q4
Facilitator	Line Saele	Scribe	Alex de Leon
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Line Saele	HL7 Norway
X	Irma Jongeneel	HL7 The Netherlands
X	Brian Postlethwaite	HL7 Australia
X	Christian Hay	GS1
X	Alex de Leon	Kaiser PermanenteD
Quorum Requirements Met (Chair + 2 members): Yes

Agenda

Agenda Topics

• Open Session for Proposed work.

Supporting Documents

• None

Minutes

Since this is open session, the WG addressed potential work. Proposal from Helse Vest, Norway to find a scheduled encounter for a patient, equipment or service delivery location.
Line presented the Implementation Guide for this effort.

This apparently is not available in the current encounter topic. Irma postulated that the current Find Encounters Query might meet this need. Line is presenting this to assure that it is still valid before they move forward within HL7 Norway. This has to do with find scheduled encounter. This was more as informational as to how Helse Vest is using the encounter query model. Irma noted that although their implementation does not 100% match the standards, since this is already implemented, there may not be more work as a result of this implementation.

The WG continued with discussing more work within this open session. The question was raised regarding which direction we would guide new work coming our way. New work would require a project scope statement, unless the work is FHIR related, in which case it would most likely be covered by the overall FHIR Project Scope Statement, which of course requires at least 2 implementers of the new work. Irma suggested that we announce availability for more work for the Patient Administration work group in one of the general sessions. This would need to be done by one of the co-chairs. This should be discussed further.
WG adjourned at 4:51.

Meeting Outcomes

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) .

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items .

Navigation

• Go To Monday Minutes
• Go To Wednesday Minutes
• Go To Wednesday Minutes
• Go To Thursday Minutes
• Return to PA January 2014 WGM
• Return to PA Main Page

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.