This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "2016-12-16PC CIMI POC Call Minutes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Agenda) |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
|colspan="2"| | |colspan="2"| | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | y || | + | | y || Gay Dolin |
|colspan="2"| | |colspan="2"| | ||
|- | |- | ||
Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/> | '''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/> | ||
− | * | + | * 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=== | ===Meeting Outcomes=== | ||
Line 146: | Line 140: | ||
| width="100%" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Actions''' '' | | width="100%" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Actions''' '' | ||
− | * | + | * 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 | + | * 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
- 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
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.