This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "2016-12-16PC CIMI POC Call Minutes"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with " <!-- LOOK FOR THE APPROPRIATE SECTION ****** TO ENTER INFORMATION--> Back to PC CIMI POC Minutes ==Minutes Template== ===Meeting Information=== {|border="1" cellpadding="...")
 
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 65: Line 65:
 
|colspan="2"|  
 
|colspan="2"|  
 
|-
 
|-
−
| y || Gaye Dolin
+
| y || Gay Dolin
 
|colspan="2"|  
 
|colspan="2"|  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 97: Line 97:
 
===Agenda===
 
===Agenda===
 
'''Agenda Topics''' <br/>
 
'''Agenda Topics''' <br/>
−
# Review skin exam & wound to support RM work
+
# ballot review
  
 
===Minutes===
 
===Minutes===
Line 112: Line 112:
  
 
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>
 
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>
−
* Evaluation may subdivide into Lab, physical exam result. Others? Questionnaire? Instrument (e.g., Braden)?
+
* Ballot is intimidating. We need to do a better job of leading with a value proposition & helping readers navigate.
−
* Value sets: we had discussed in line for ballot, but time constraints may force us to use URIs, even if we can't provide a service to resolve them.
+
* Is it possible to reduce the interoperability scope (re-inventing infrastructure, provenance, etc.) to focus on clinical semantic scope (derivation of computable rules)? Can we identify a set of rules we can use to draw that scope?
−
* Evaluation has an 'interpretation' field.
+
* Review of Wound class
−
** An assessment may 'interpret' some number of independent findings. The property name for Assessment should not be 'interpretation' but 'interprets' (or even something more specific, like 'has supporting information' or 'judgment based on').
+
** Should follow LOINC panel: gap analysis for next week
−
** The SCT concept model attribute 'interprets' is the relationship between a finding and the observable entity about which it is found. I'm not crazy about the name, but we don't control it. Because it's already in place, it may make sense to call the Assertion property something else, as suggested above.
+
** Wound kind concept seems to be missing. Could be "Name," inherited from Assertion, but there's no semantic constraint.
−
* In addition to EvaluationResult, ExamEvaluationResult, and LabEvaluationResult, we'll create a SkinExamEvaluationResult.
+
** Dressing should not be contained by Wound
−
** Or is that just an archetype constraint on ExamEvaluationResult?
+
** size: should be multiple, not 0..1
−
* A panel is a collection of observations that can have independent clinical existence.
+
** Some properties have an 'existence' implication. Should we create assertions for them or evaluations, or leave it implicit?
−
** Do we need a pattern for collections of things that have no independent clinical validity (e.g., Braden components)?
+
*** If it's modeled, we don't want absence to be potentially implicit.  
−
** For now, we can simply model them as constituent findings in a compound statement and constrain out anything we don't want.
+
*** To make it explicit and predictable, we need it to be an evaluation.
−
* Items in the Evaluation class not yet identified for skin exam:
+
*** Proposed principle: if it's in a LOINC panel, it's an evaluation, not an assertion.
−
** reason - rationale unclear; more appropriate to evaluation procedure. Leave out.
+
*** In some cases, a significant fact may be a facet of a normal phenomenon. Wound exudate odor, for instance, might have an answer value set that includes "normal" (rather than having to assert "absent" or distinguish between "absent" and "healthy").
−
** status - for lab. leave out.
 
−
** priority - procedure. leave out.
 
−
** sequence - derive from time, if necessary. leave out. (possible need for specified sequence, but that's order, not result)
 
−
** delta flag - Derive or record? Keep for now. (CEML: better or worse)
 
−
** signal flag - Keep. Encode.
 
−
** reference range - Keep.
 
  
 
===Meeting Outcomes===
 
===Meeting Outcomes===
Line 146: Line 140:
 
| width="100%" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Actions''' ''
 
| width="100%" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Actions''' ''
  
−
* begin construction of test classes
+
* LOINC gap analysis for Wound
 +
* SCT gap analysis for Wound
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 160: Line 155:
  
 
|width="100%" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
 
|width="100%" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
−
*Review test class progress & tooling
+
* Review CIMI Wound gap analysis
 
|}
 
|}
  
 
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International.  All rights reserved.
 
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International.  All rights reserved.

Latest revision as of 16:22, 16 December 2016

Back to PC CIMI POC Minutes

Minutes Template

Meeting Information

HL7 PC-CIMI-POC Meeting Minutes

Location: Phone

Date: 2016-12-16
Time: 10:00-11:00 ET
Facilitator Jay Lyle Note taker(s) Jay Lyle
Attendee Name Affiliation


Richard Esmond PenRad
Galen Mulrooney JP Systems
y Jay Lyle JP Systems / VA
Harold Solbrig Mayo
y Susan Matney Intermountain
y Joey Coyle
y Gay Dolin
y Ash Davison Intermountain
Laura Heerman Langford Intermountain
Claude Nanjo
Rob McClure

Agenda

Agenda Topics

  1. ballot review

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  • Ballot is intimidating. We need to do a better job of leading with a value proposition & helping readers navigate.
  • Is it possible to reduce the interoperability scope (re-inventing infrastructure, provenance, etc.) to focus on clinical semantic scope (derivation of computable rules)? Can we identify a set of rules we can use to draw that scope?
  • Review of Wound class
    • Should follow LOINC panel: gap analysis for next week
    • Wound kind concept seems to be missing. Could be "Name," inherited from Assertion, but there's no semantic constraint.
    • Dressing should not be contained by Wound
    • size: should be multiple, not 0..1
    • Some properties have an 'existence' implication. Should we create assertions for them or evaluations, or leave it implicit?
      • If it's modeled, we don't want absence to be potentially implicit.
      • To make it explicit and predictable, we need it to be an evaluation.
      • Proposed principle: if it's in a LOINC panel, it's an evaluation, not an assertion.
      • In some cases, a significant fact may be a facet of a normal phenomenon. Wound exudate odor, for instance, might have an answer value set that includes "normal" (rather than having to assert "absent" or distinguish between "absent" and "healthy").

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
  • LOINC gap analysis for Wound
  • SCT gap analysis for Wound
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • Review CIMI Wound gap analysis

© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2016-12-16PC_CIMI_POC_Call_Minutes&oldid=130243"