Difference between revisions of "2016-10-14PC CIMI POC Call Minutes"

Revision as of 15:26, 14 October 2016

HL7 PC-CIMI-POC Meeting Minutes Location: Phone		Date: 2016-10-14 Time: 10:00-11:00 ET
Facilitator	Jay Lyle	Note taker(s)	Jay Lyle

Attendee	Name	Affiliation
	Richard Esmond	PenRad
	Galen Mulrooney	JP Systems
	Jay Lyle	JP Systems / VA
	Harold Solbrig	Mayo
	Susan Matney	Intermountain
	Susan Campbell
	Kurt Allen
	Joey Coyle	Intermountain
	Laura Heerman Langford	Intermountain
	Gerard Frericks
	Rob McClure

Agenda Topics

review assessment content requirements
1. how many 'about' codes
2. body site: coded, with modifier, and * (contiguous)
3. can we make 'related observation' more specific?
4. composition: lab/exam then qual/quant, or vice versa? or compositional?
review assertion content requirements
1. course & mechanism are precoordinated in SCT
2. drainage:
  1. confirm type list
  2. status: values?
  3. qualitative volume values?
3. undermining & tunneling:
  1. properties, or new associated lesions? restrict their properties?
  2. normalize dimensional measurements to a single 'dimension/magnitude' property?
concept alignment
1. Is an assertion a finding?
2. Is an evaluation an observable + a finding?

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Jim had questions about the use of attribute bindings. Jay attempted to answer them.
- Jim still has misgivings about using Situation, at least partly due to potential conflict between absence values & findings.
Jay to schedule offline review of requirements with Susan due to scheduling conflicts
We need to address code vs reference for devices, procedures, etc.
- For the finding, we are interested in the type (cuff, scale, thermometer, etc.), not the device itself.
- But we might link to the device itself to support retrieval of the type
- Or we could assert that we don't care; if you link to support retrieval, go ahead and retrieve.
  - If you need the device, record it under an actual procedure.
- If we decide we do need both, then are code & reference two distinct properties?
Consider 'link' for typed references.
- Claude: slicing is difficult
- Jay: define archetypes for Braden parts & panel; include parts in panel. Is that slicing, & is it difficult?
- tabled
Precondition range is limited
- some required precondition values are findings, some qualifiers.
- request expansion of range to accommodate non-lab
- or just use related finding instead
- Jay to provide Vitals use case to Linda for consideration (review with Claude)

Actions

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 '''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>
-#
+* Jim had questions about the use of attribute bindings. Jay attempted to answer them.
+** Jim still has misgivings about using Situation, at least partly due to potential conflict between absence values & findings.
+* Jay to schedule offline  review of requirements with Susan due to scheduling conflicts
+* We need to address code vs reference for devices, procedures, etc.
+** For the finding, we are interested in the type (cuff, scale, thermometer, etc.), not the device itself.
+** But we might link to the device itself to support retrieval of the type
+** Or we could assert that we don't care; if you link to support retrieval, go ahead and retrieve.
+*** If you need the device, record it under an actual procedure.
+** If we decide we do need both, then are code & reference two distinct properties?
+* Consider 'link' for typed references.
+** Claude: slicing is difficult
+** Jay: define archetypes for Braden parts & panel; include parts in panel. Is that slicing, & is it difficult?
+** tabled
+* Precondition range is limited
+** some required precondition values are findings, some qualifiers.
+** request expansion of range to accommodate non-lab
+** or just use related finding instead
+** Jay to provide Vitals use case to Linda for consideration (review with Claude)
 ===Meeting Outcomes===
 {|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"