This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Conference call minutes 1 March 2016"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Michael tan (talk | contribs) |
m (→DAM discussion) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
== DAM discussion== | == DAM discussion== | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | *Jay Lyle has made a new diagram with the suggestions from the previous meeting. | ||
| + | [[File:Concernclassdiagram_10.png]] | ||
| − | * | + | * Discussion arises about the diagram. |
| − | * | + | * Do we need to bring back the concern expresser? This could be a person, such as family member, who has no access to a system. |
| − | * | + | * Jay will reconsider. |
| − | * | + | * What do we want to capture in the logging for accountability? And on what level? What do we store? date, likelihood, severity? |
| − | * | + | * David Pyke suggests that date could also be done with a date connected to concern, instead of having the change history. |
| − | * | + | * Larry McKnight remarks that the focus of the accountability is on the ( n:n) relationships between concerns and concern events. |
| − | + | * Even a change of concern name is derived from an concern event, where for example, a new diagnosis is registered. | |
| − | + | * The relationship between health concern and concern event is more than just an arrow. The general feeling is that an object class should be added between the health concern and the event, with additional information about the author and the (effective) time the event was linked to or detached from the concern. | |
| − | + | * Split, merge, supersede do not seem to be the only relationship values between concerns. Concerns from different care providers could be related to each other without the necessity to replace the other concern. They could be subconcerns or concerns with a common cause, but for another purpose ( speciality). | |
| − | + | * Jay Lyle asks if the value set is similar as the concern event relationship kind value set with the exception of morbidity and measures. | |
| − | * The | + | * David Tao has sent questions prior to the meeting. The text in the boxes for Concern Relationship and Event Relationship seem to be backwards. |
| + | * The list purpose and list kind in the concern list were not exhaustive. David will provide additional suggestions to add to concern list. | ||
| + | * The suggestion was also to look at the FHIR resource of LIST. | ||
| + | * The values "measures, comorbidity and in Patient/with known" where not clear. The explanation of these values can be found in the DAM document. | ||
== Action items== | == Action items== | ||
| − | *Adjust the diagram and add a health concern | + | *Adjust the diagram and add a object class between health concern and concern events: Jay |
*Propose text about priorities between health concerns: David | *Propose text about priorities between health concerns: David | ||
*Revise text in Patient Journey story chapter 7.1; Michael | *Revise text in Patient Journey story chapter 7.1; Michael | ||
Latest revision as of 18:36, 2 March 2016
Contents
Health Concern Topic
Patient Care WG
March 1st 2016
Attendees:
- Michael Tan – Chair/ Scribe
- David Pyke
- Larry McKnight
- David Tao
- Jay Lyle
- Michelle Miller
Participation Information Phone Number: +1 770-657-9270 Participant Passcode: 943377
Web Meeting Info www.webex.com Meeting number 238 558 505
Minutes 23 February
- There were no remarks about the minutes of February 23d.
- Motion to approve by Jay Lyle, second by David Tao
- Vote: 2 abstain, 0 oppose, 3 approve
DAM discussion
- Jay Lyle has made a new diagram with the suggestions from the previous meeting.
- Discussion arises about the diagram.
- Do we need to bring back the concern expresser? This could be a person, such as family member, who has no access to a system.
- Jay will reconsider.
- What do we want to capture in the logging for accountability? And on what level? What do we store? date, likelihood, severity?
- David Pyke suggests that date could also be done with a date connected to concern, instead of having the change history.
- Larry McKnight remarks that the focus of the accountability is on the ( n:n) relationships between concerns and concern events.
- Even a change of concern name is derived from an concern event, where for example, a new diagnosis is registered.
- The relationship between health concern and concern event is more than just an arrow. The general feeling is that an object class should be added between the health concern and the event, with additional information about the author and the (effective) time the event was linked to or detached from the concern.
- Split, merge, supersede do not seem to be the only relationship values between concerns. Concerns from different care providers could be related to each other without the necessity to replace the other concern. They could be subconcerns or concerns with a common cause, but for another purpose ( speciality).
- Jay Lyle asks if the value set is similar as the concern event relationship kind value set with the exception of morbidity and measures.
- David Tao has sent questions prior to the meeting. The text in the boxes for Concern Relationship and Event Relationship seem to be backwards.
- The list purpose and list kind in the concern list were not exhaustive. David will provide additional suggestions to add to concern list.
- The suggestion was also to look at the FHIR resource of LIST.
- The values "measures, comorbidity and in Patient/with known" where not clear. The explanation of these values can be found in the DAM document.
Action items
- Adjust the diagram and add a object class between health concern and concern events: Jay
- Propose text about priorities between health concerns: David
- Revise text in Patient Journey story chapter 7.1; Michael
Go back to health concern minutes[[1]]
