This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Conference call minutes 1 March 2016"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Michael tan (talk | contribs) |
Michael tan (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
* David Pyke suggests that date could also be done with a "date connected to concern" instead of having the HC change history. | * David Pyke suggests that date could also be done with a "date connected to concern" instead of having the HC change history. | ||
* Larry McKnight remarks that the focus of the accountability is on the ( n:n) relationships between concerns and concern events. | * Larry McKnight remarks that the focus of the accountability is on the ( n:n) relationships between concerns and concern events. | ||
| − | * Even a change of concern name is derived from an event, where for example a new diagnosis is registered. | + | * Even a change of concern name is derived from an concern event, where for example, a new diagnosis is registered. |
| + | * The relationship between health concern and concern event is more than just an arrow. The general feeling is that an object class should be added between the health concern and the event, with additional information about the author and the (effective) time the event was linked or detached to the concern. | ||
| + | * Split, merge, supersede do not seem to be the only relationship values between concerns. Concerns from different care providers could be related to each other without being merged. They could be subconcerns or concerns with a common cause. | ||
== Action items== | == Action items== | ||
Revision as of 11:52, 2 March 2016
Contents
Health Concern Topic
Patient Care WG
March 1st 2016
Attendees:
- Michael Tan – Chair/ Scribe
- David Pyke
- Larry McKnight
- David Tao
- Jay Lyle
- Michelle Miller
Participation Information Phone Number: +1 770-657-9270 Participant Passcode: 943377
Web Meeting Info www.webex.com Meeting number 238 558 505
Minutes 23 February
- There were no remarks about the minutes of February 23d.
- Motion to approve by Jay Lyle, second by David Tao
- Vote: 2 abstain, 0 oppose, 3 approve
DAM discussion
- Jay has made a new diagram with the suggestions from the previous meeting.
- Discussion arises about the diagram.
- Do we need to bring back the concern expresser? This could be person, such as family member, who has no access to a system.
- What do we want to capture in the logging for accountability? And on what level: date, likelihood, severity?
- David Pyke suggests that date could also be done with a "date connected to concern" instead of having the HC change history.
- Larry McKnight remarks that the focus of the accountability is on the ( n:n) relationships between concerns and concern events.
- Even a change of concern name is derived from an concern event, where for example, a new diagnosis is registered.
- The relationship between health concern and concern event is more than just an arrow. The general feeling is that an object class should be added between the health concern and the event, with additional information about the author and the (effective) time the event was linked or detached to the concern.
- Split, merge, supersede do not seem to be the only relationship values between concerns. Concerns from different care providers could be related to each other without being merged. They could be subconcerns or concerns with a common cause.
Action items
- Adjust the diagram and add a health concern change history class: Jay
- Propose text about priorities between health concerns: David
- Revise text in Patient Journey story chapter 7.1; Michael
Go back to health concern minutes[[1]]
