Difference between revisions of "RnP Tuesday, October 4"
(Created page with "The October 4th call was very brief, attended by David Tao and Joe Lamy (Aegis). The following items are on the to-do list for RnP: o NIB deadline of October 30th. How do we...") |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The following items are on the to-do list for RnP: | The following items are on the to-do list for RnP: | ||
| − | + | *NIB deadline of October 30th. How do we create and get a NIB accepted? | |
| − | + | *Initial content deadline of November 13th. What are the "technicalities" of getting the document in the right format, and approved by the right people (Publishing WG? SDWG? Who else?) | |
| − | + | *Final content deadline of December 4th | |
| − | + | *Ballot starts December 9th | |
Joe asked whether there were plans to create templates for the findings of RnP, essentially turning the RnP paper into an IG on top of C-CDA. David said that was not in scope at this time, given the short time remaining until the ballot deadline, and the shortage of people to work on that. David also said that some of the recommendations would be difficult to meaningfully enforce through templates and validators (e.g., you could ensure that the Hospital Course section is present, but it would be hard to know whether it was well created. Similarly, it would be hard to test whether the "relevant" procedures had been included, and not the "irrelevant" ones. | Joe asked whether there were plans to create templates for the findings of RnP, essentially turning the RnP paper into an IG on top of C-CDA. David said that was not in scope at this time, given the short time remaining until the ballot deadline, and the shortage of people to work on that. David also said that some of the recommendations would be difficult to meaningfully enforce through templates and validators (e.g., you could ensure that the Hospital Course section is present, but it would be hard to know whether it was well created. Similarly, it would be hard to test whether the "relevant" procedures had been included, and not the "irrelevant" ones. | ||
Latest revision as of 16:36, 4 October 2016
The October 4th call was very brief, attended by David Tao and Joe Lamy (Aegis).
The following items are on the to-do list for RnP:
- NIB deadline of October 30th. How do we create and get a NIB accepted?
- Initial content deadline of November 13th. What are the "technicalities" of getting the document in the right format, and approved by the right people (Publishing WG? SDWG? Who else?)
- Final content deadline of December 4th
- Ballot starts December 9th
Joe asked whether there were plans to create templates for the findings of RnP, essentially turning the RnP paper into an IG on top of C-CDA. David said that was not in scope at this time, given the short time remaining until the ballot deadline, and the shortage of people to work on that. David also said that some of the recommendations would be difficult to meaningfully enforce through templates and validators (e.g., you could ensure that the Hospital Course section is present, but it would be hard to know whether it was well created. Similarly, it would be hard to test whether the "relevant" procedures had been included, and not the "irrelevant" ones.
David pointed Joe to the RnP wiki for the latest RnP document and also the Powerpoint presentation given in Baltimore.
Joe mentioned one specific problem faced by SSA, which receives CCDs that do not include all the relevant encounters. David said that the Encounters section, while part of the RnP survey, did not have any significant findings related to it. However, David sent Joe a link to the "Clinical Documents for Payers" STU, which may have more rigorous requirements for completeness of data.
