This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "CCS Comments Only Ballot Reconciliation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
===<span style="color:blue">June 4, 2013</span>=== | ===<span style="color:blue">June 4, 2013</span>=== | ||
| + | Attendees: Russ Leftwich, Susan Campbell, Stephen Chu, Laura Heermann, Emma Jones, Kevin Coonan | ||
| + | |||
| + | Facilitator: Stephen Chu | Scribe: Enrique Meneses | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Future discussion item:''' | ||
* Susan: need to capture the context of a meeting and associated activities. | * Susan: need to capture the context of a meeting and associated activities. | ||
** e.g. may want to take a snapshot of the meeting and export as a CDA document | ** e.g. may want to take a snapshot of the meeting and export as a CDA document | ||
** need to look at existing capabilities and decide what is needed for this | ** need to look at existing capabilities and decide what is needed for this | ||
| − | * | + | * Need to specify approach for dealing with governance and policies. It's out of scope for CCS but there needs to be a precise way of specifying the context required for policy evaluation. |
| + | |||
| + | ** What we mean by governance: A mechanism for determining agreement among care team including the patient with regards to decision authority. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * CCS will not specify capabilities for privacy, access, security and audit logging. These are general industry capabilities which should be common among the many SOA services defined by HL7. We still need to do due diligence in reviewing what we reference in the document (as it would represent a sort of "endorsement"). There exists an [http://hssp-security.wikispaces.com/ HSSP privacy, access and security specification] which we could leverage. There are questions regarding it's alignment with the EHR FM which need to be answered. If this is to be defined by the patient care WG then there will be a separate project scope statement (and will be out of scope for CCS). | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Kevin: we need to make sure consumers understand we cannot define conformance to the SFM. The only way to specify conformance is against a technical specification (e.g. OMG phase). Agreed. | ||
===<span style="color:blue">June 11, 2013</span>=== | ===<span style="color:blue">June 11, 2013</span>=== | ||
Revision as of 01:53, 5 June 2013
Contents
Care Coordination Service Ballot Reconciliation
Comments Ballot - May 2013
Consolidated Excel Spreadsheet
Updated with changes from May 28, 2013 CCS weekly meeting
Click here to view excel file: File:CCS-Consolidated-Ballot-Comments.xlsx
May 21, 2013
Attendees: Stephen Chu, Susan Campbell, Laura Heermann, Nan Hou, Emma Jones
Facilitator: Stephen Chu | Scribe: Enrique Meneses
Overview: Comment notes are captured in the uploaded consolidated ballot spreadsheet
In this meeting we did the following:
- Continued reconciliation of major negative comments from Dr. O'Malley
- Team decided to invite him to an upcoming meeting to discuss with him remaining comments
- Started reconciliation of minor negative comments
May 28, 2013
Attendees: Stephen Chu, Susan Campbell, Laura Heermann, Nan Hou, Emma Jones, Kevin Coonan, Russ Leftwich
Facilitator: Stephen Chu | Scribe: Enrique Meneses
Overview: Comment notes are captured in the uploaded consolidated ballot spreadsheet
In this meeting we did the following:
- Continued reconciliation of minor negative comments followed by comments submitted by Russ Leftwich on behalf of S&I LCC
- Follow up action item: Email Bill Russell for clarification on comment #7 (structure of interventions and orders)
- Again reemphasized we need an interaction diagram of a generic process
June 4, 2013
Attendees: Russ Leftwich, Susan Campbell, Stephen Chu, Laura Heermann, Emma Jones, Kevin Coonan
Facilitator: Stephen Chu | Scribe: Enrique Meneses
Future discussion item:
- Susan: need to capture the context of a meeting and associated activities.
- e.g. may want to take a snapshot of the meeting and export as a CDA document
- need to look at existing capabilities and decide what is needed for this
- Need to specify approach for dealing with governance and policies. It's out of scope for CCS but there needs to be a precise way of specifying the context required for policy evaluation.
- What we mean by governance: A mechanism for determining agreement among care team including the patient with regards to decision authority.
- CCS will not specify capabilities for privacy, access, security and audit logging. These are general industry capabilities which should be common among the many SOA services defined by HL7. We still need to do due diligence in reviewing what we reference in the document (as it would represent a sort of "endorsement"). There exists an HSSP privacy, access and security specification which we could leverage. There are questions regarding it's alignment with the EHR FM which need to be answered. If this is to be defined by the patient care WG then there will be a separate project scope statement (and will be out of scope for CCS).
- Kevin: we need to make sure consumers understand we cannot define conformance to the SFM. The only way to specify conformance is against a technical specification (e.g. OMG phase). Agreed.
June 11, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 25, 2013
DSTU Ballot - September 2013
Placeholder
