This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "2016-11-18PC CIMI POC Call Minutes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
** priority - procedure. 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) | ** 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. | + | ** delta flag - Derive or record? Keep for now. (CEML: better or worse) |
** signal flag - Keep. Encode. | ** signal flag - Keep. Encode. | ||
** reference range - Keep. | ** reference range - Keep. |
Latest revision as of 17:24, 18 November 2016
Back to PC CIMI POC Minutes
Minutes Template
Meeting Information
HL7 PC-CIMI-POC Meeting Minutes Location: Phone |
Date: 2016-11-18 Time: 10:00-11:00 ET | ||
Facilitator | Jay Lyle | Note taker(s) | Jay Lyle |
Attendee | Name | Affiliation
| |
y | Richard Esmond | PenRad | |
Galen Mulrooney | JP Systems | ||
y | Jay Lyle | JP Systems / VA | |
Harold Solbrig | Mayo | ||
y | Susan Matney | Intermountain | |
y | Susan Campbell | ||
Jim Case | |||
Chris Johnson | Intermountain | ||
Laura Heerman Langford | Intermountain | ||
y | Claude Nanjo | ||
Rob McClure | |||
Agenda
Agenda Topics
- Review skin exam & wound to support RM work
Minutes
Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
- Evaluation may subdivide into Lab, physical exam result. Others? Questionnaire? Instrument (e.g., Braden)?
- 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.
- Evaluation has an 'interpretation' field.
- 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').
- 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.
- In addition to EvaluationResult, ExamEvaluationResult, and LabEvaluationResult, we'll create a SkinExamEvaluationResult.
- Or is that just an archetype constraint on ExamEvaluationResult?
- A panel is a collection of observations that can have independent clinical existence.
- Do we need a pattern for collections of things that have no independent clinical validity (e.g., Braden components)?
- For now, we can simply model them as constituent findings in a compound statement and constrain out anything we don't want.
- Items in the Evaluation class not yet identified for skin exam:
- reason - rationale unclear; more appropriate to evaluation procedure. Leave out.
- 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
Actions
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.