Difference between revisions of "2016-06-02 Patient Care FHIR Call"
| Line 277: | Line 277: | ||
* Daniel Lanphear (submitter of [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=8458| gForge 8458]) to draft new resource proposal for transfusion. | * Daniel Lanphear (submitter of [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=8458| gForge 8458]) to draft new resource proposal for transfusion. | ||
* Rob to help fill in value sets for CareTeam status and type | * Rob to help fill in value sets for CareTeam status and type | ||
| + | * http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=10067 -- reach out to Russ about harmonization | ||
Revision as of 22:28, 2 June 2016
Contents
Meeting Information
| Patient Care FHIR Resources Conference Call Location: Conference Call |
Date: 2016-06-02 Time: 5-6:30pm ET | ||
| Facilitator | Michelle M Miller | Note taker(s) | Michelle M Miller |
| Attendee | Name | Affiliation
| |
| X | Elaine Ayres | NIH/Department of Clinical Research Informatics | |
| X | Stephen Chu | ||
| X | Eric Haas | Haas Consulting | |
| X | Rob Hausam | Hausam Consulting LLC | |
| X | Laura Heermann-Langford | Intermountain Healthcare | |
| X | Emma Jones | Allscripts | |
| Russ Leftwich | InterSystems | ||
| Jay Lyle | Ockham Information Services LLC, VA | ||
| Sarah Maulden | VA | ||
| Jim McClay | Univ of Nebraska Medical Center | ||
| Russell McDonell | Telstra Health | ||
| Lloyd McKenzie | Gevity (HL7 Canada) | ||
| Larry McKnight | Cerner | ||
| X | Michelle M Miller | Cerner | |
| Lisa Nelson | Life Over Time Solutions | ||
| Viet Nguyen | Lockheed Martin, Systems Made Simple | ||
| M'Lynda Owens | Cognosante | ||
| Craig Parker | Intermountain Healthcare | ||
| Scott Robertson | Kaiser Permanente | ||
| Simon Sum | Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics | ||
| Iona Thraen | Dept of Veterans Affairs | ||
| Quorum Requirements Met: YES | |||
Agenda
Agenda Topics
- Agenda review
- Approve previous meeting minutes 2016-05-26_Patient_Care_FHIR_Call
- Motion: Rob/Eric Abstain - 3, Negative - 0, Approve - 3
- Prior Action Item Follow-up
- Negation Update
- gForge change request
Supporting Information
STU 3 Timeline
- Wed, June 1
- All resource and IG proposals for STU3 have been completed, reviewed by WG and submitted
- Connectathon tracks for Sept have been proposed
- Feedback on gForge submitted to FMG
- Sun, July 17 - Substantive content freeze for ballot -- core resources
- Sun, July 24 - Total content freeze, start of QA
- Wed, Aug 10 (midnight) - All QA changes applied
- Fri, Aug 12 - FHIR ballot opens
- Fri, Sept 12 - FHIR ballot closes
- Fri, Sept 16 - FHIR triage complete and ballot content loaded to gForge (or alternate)
- Sept 17-23 - Baltimore WGM
- Sun, Dec 11
- Reconciliation complete/substantive changes applied
- Just over 10 weeks
- Will re-evaluate at Baltimore based on volume of ballot comments
- Dec 31 - Publish
FHIR Maturity Levels
- Level 3 requires the artifact has been verified by the work group as meeting the DSTU_2_QA_guidelines and has been subject to a round of formal balloting; has at least 10 implementer comments recorded in the tracker drawn from at least 3 organizations resulting in at least one substantive change
- Substantive changes (element names, sort order, vocabulary bindings, etc.) need to be applied by ballot freeze (Aug 10).
- Unapplied QA checklist changes can be logged as ballot issues to be applied Sept-Dec. Substantive changes after ballot should be driven by ballot.
- Non-substantive changes are fine
- Level 2 requires artifact has been tested and successfully exchanged between at least three independently developed systems leveraging at least 80% of the core data elements using semi-realistic data and scenarios based on at least one of the declared scopes of the resource (e.g. at a connectathon). These interoperability results must have been reported to and accepted by the FMG.
| Resource |
Current FMM Level | Goal FMM Level | QA Status | QA Reviewer | Implementation | Comments |
| AllergyIntolerance | 1 | 3 | Rob | Argonaut | ||
| Condition | 2 | 3 | PCWG | Argonaut | ||
| Procedure | 1 | 3 | Argonaut | |||
| CarePlan | 1 | 3 | Argonaut | |||
| Goal | 1 | 3 | ||||
| QuestionnaireResponse | 2 | 2 | Lloyd | Lloyd will QA to get to level 3 | ||
| Questionnaire | 0 | 2 | Lloyd | Lloyd will QA to get to level 3 | ||
| CareTeam | 0 | 2 | NA | NA | Aggressive goal (e.g. whether we'll get the implementations needed) | |
| FamilyMemberHistory | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | Aggressive goal (e.g. whether we'll get the implementations needed) | |
| ClinicalImpression | 0 | 1 | NA | NA | ||
| ReferralRequest | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | ||
| ProcedureRequest | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | ||
| Linkage | 0 | 1 | NA | NA | ||
| Flag | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | ||
| Communication | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | ||
| CommunicationRequest | 1 | 1 | NA | NA |
Note: Bold denotes top 20 resource based on survey
Note: Contraindication and Risk Assessment are owned by CDS, not Patient Care
Minutes
Prior Action Item Follow-up
- Michelle to log gForge change requests for issues identified during QA review of Condition
Negation Update
Review Rob's proposed negation changes to AllergyIntolerance http://rhausam.no-ip.org/fhir/allergyintolerance.html
Propose renaming AllergyIntolerance.substance to AllergyIntolerance.code (it remains required, with cardinality 1..1) with revamped definition:
Code for an allergy or intolerance statement (either a positive or a negated/excluded statement). This may be a code for a substance or pharmaceutical product that is considered to be responsible for the adverse reaction risk, an allergy or intolerance condition, or a negated/excluded code (e.g., "No known allergy", "No latex allergy", etc.).
It is strongly recommended that this element be populated using a terminology, where possible. For example, some terminologies used include RxNorm, SNOMED CT, DM+D, NDFRT, ICD-9, IDC-10, UNI, ATC and CPT. Plain text should only be used if there is no appropriate terminology available. Additional details can be specified in the text
How does status and code get interpreted together?
- Example: Reviewed https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/implementers/topic/MedicationStatement.2Estatus
- Currently, the AllergyIntolerance spec says "If new allergy is discovered, the negated allergy record must be updated with the "refuted" status - to ensure that systems referring to this record are aware that this is no longer true."
- This implies that we could have both:
- status of Refuted + code of "No Latex Allergy" (user interface may hide this with an option to view it)
- status of Confirmed + code of Latex
gForge Change Requests
http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=10067 -- reach out to Russ about harmonization
Adjourn
Adjourned at <hh:mm am/pm> <timezone>.
Meeting Outcomes
Actions
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.
