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

Difference between revisions of "Conference call minutes 16 April 2015"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "=Health Concern Topic= '''Patient Care WG''' '''April 16, 2015 ''' ==Attendees:== *Michael Tan – Chair *Jay Lyle *Dave Pyke *Ken Chen (partial) *Stephen Chu (partial) Part...")
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 21: Line 21:
 
==Previous Meeting==
 
==Previous Meeting==
 
There was no quorum to approve the minutes of April 2nd  
 
There was no quorum to approve the minutes of April 2nd  
−
==Review of new diagram==
+
==Review of use cases==
−
We continued with the new model and the questions that Jay had prepared for the call.
+
* We wanted to harmonize the model for Care Plan and Health Concern, but we did not have enough participants to discuss this topic.
 +
* We focused on the use case 1 and 2.
 +
**There were doubts whether these scenarios added new views to the existing explanation.
 +
**We distinguished 2 approaches to health concern.
 +
***The first is a pro-active approach where the care provider defines a health concern and sets out health concern events. This issue might be part of care planning.
 +
***The second is a retrospective view on problems and where the care provider concludes that certain health care events have relationship with the concern and therefore attaches these events to the health concern.
 +
***A combination of these two approaches are possible. In many cases the care provider does not know on day 1 what the concern is and starts of with a review of the problems in the past. Then after a hypothesis of the concerns sets out research and finally when the diagnosis is clear, defines a care plan.
 +
***The second approach is a characteristic of the health concern. The first approach is how the care plan addresses the health concern.
 +
** A Care plan is usually only defined in complex care, because it is labor intensive. Many health concerns do not have a formal care plan.
 +
 
 +
We will discuss the relationship between Care Plan and Health Concern on Wednesday 22 April 5 pm  and Thursday 23 April 4 pm.
  
−
#Is an order associated with a problem part of a concern or part of a plan?
 
−
##We could leave it very loose and permit it, or we could specify that the link is via the plan.Both are possible.
 
−
##Build an instance diagram to clarify the issue, and possibly demonstrate that there is no problem. Which is looking likely.
 
−
##There were concerns that this would might lead to the risk of duplication of orders, but that is more of a governance issue rather than an information architecture issue. We should notify Care Plan domain of risk of duplicate orders due to attaching orders to Concern object.
 
−
#Is there a rule or assumption that related events (e.g., results, administrations) be associated with the source event's concern?
 
−
##Possibly; it could be left to policy.
 
−
##Events are already attached through the diagnosis.Do you buy anything by creating the explicit concern tag?
 
−
##There is a need for editorial control over potentially large volume of data
 
−
##Leave this as an option for manual or automatic attachment.
 
−
#Is there a 'context' that automatically associates an event with a particular “in context” concern? Are there boundaries we need to identify--i.e., does the clinician need to be aware of context and consciously indicate when it changes?
 
−
##Good to reduce need to explicitly associate things. Clinicians are not inclined to extra administration.
 
−
##Closing contexts may not happen.
 
−
##We need more clinician input on UX.
 
−
##Or leave context management to implementers. Out of scope for DAM.
 
−
#When merging, is the name the more recent, or does the merger get to choose?
 
−
##Both are kept. Option to adopt or not
 
−
##But: you may also want a “locally familiar” name that does not diverge semantically but is easier to read.
 
−
##The new custodian is likely to be from another discipline with other needs of recognizing the concern is his specialty domain. Added “localName” to model to support this.
 
−
#Is ‘follow-up’ a concern? It looks like it might be a classifier for an encounter associated with the discharge dx concern.
 
−
##It may be an event under a concern.
 
−
#Would a provider add a separate concern to the list to support past medical history, or is there a different mechanism for history? Might there be a different status--e.g., active, resolved but historically relevant, and inactive?
 
−
##Not likely. Most likely would be to change the state of a concern: Active or inactive.
 
−
##Or are there rules for what shows up in History -- timeframe, seriousness. These “history inclusion” rules are specific to the institution.
 
−
##Modern search engines in the big data era are capable of retrieving complex key words.
 
  
 
The document of the model can be found here: [[File:ConcernModel.doc]]
 
The document of the model can be found here: [[File:ConcernModel.doc]]

Latest revision as of 20:13, 23 April 2015

Health Concern Topic

Patient Care WG

April 16, 2015

Attendees:

  • Michael Tan – Chair
  • Jay Lyle
  • Dave Pyke
  • Ken Chen (partial)
  • Stephen Chu (partial)

Participation Information Phone Number: +1 770-657-9270 Participant Passcode: 943377

Web Meeting Info www.webex.com Meeting number 230 634 425

Previous Meeting

There was no quorum to approve the minutes of April 2nd

Review of use cases

  • We wanted to harmonize the model for Care Plan and Health Concern, but we did not have enough participants to discuss this topic.
  • We focused on the use case 1 and 2.
    • There were doubts whether these scenarios added new views to the existing explanation.
    • We distinguished 2 approaches to health concern.
      • The first is a pro-active approach where the care provider defines a health concern and sets out health concern events. This issue might be part of care planning.
      • The second is a retrospective view on problems and where the care provider concludes that certain health care events have relationship with the concern and therefore attaches these events to the health concern.
      • A combination of these two approaches are possible. In many cases the care provider does not know on day 1 what the concern is and starts of with a review of the problems in the past. Then after a hypothesis of the concerns sets out research and finally when the diagnosis is clear, defines a care plan.
      • The second approach is a characteristic of the health concern. The first approach is how the care plan addresses the health concern.
    • A Care plan is usually only defined in complex care, because it is labor intensive. Many health concerns do not have a formal care plan.

We will discuss the relationship between Care Plan and Health Concern on Wednesday 22 April 5 pm and Thursday 23 April 4 pm.


The document of the model can be found here: File:ConcernModel.doc

Go back to health concern minutes: [[1]]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=Conference_call_minutes_16_April_2015&oldid=99333"