2011-02-01 Rx Conf Call

Pharmacy home page is here: Pharmacy_WG

Attendees

Scott, John, Melva, Rob (chair), Line Saele, Torgny Neuman, Hugh (notes), Julie, Jean-Henri, Ana, Tom, Tanya

Report on Action Items

Outstanding from 2011-01-25

Minutes Rob will post minutes and embed presentations within it. Progress with Successful Ballots: Topic Editors (mainly Jean-Henri and Hugh) will make the necessary content changes Pharmacy Intro for the Wiki Hugh - will use any introductory material people can provide to try drafting an introduction. John and Tanya may have some content and send it if possible Hugh to ask Tom if there is any Dutch content Hugh to see if the UK MIM might have useable content

Completed from 2011-01-25

Progress with Successful Ballots: Rob will take appropriate action to implement the administrative steps. (emailed Don, so should be OK)

Scope for OOC ask Tom about this and if institutional order requirements in general are covered (Hugh to action) (done)

To ensure that sure all the V2 scope is covered (ie content that is in Chapter 4) John & Rob will identify the v2 processes that should be covered ( see discussion below)

John - will finalise the scope statement for Medication statement that was begun in Sydney (sent to list serv and to be discussed next week)

Ballot Reconciliation Rob will look at the spreadsheets ready for next week (done)

Institutional scope & OOC scope

Ensure V2 scope is covered

Discussion: John & Rob are exploring this and some emails have been exchanged; RAF & RGV(??) are segments in V2 that seem to be relevant for V3 institutional - also there is a graphic of the business process that can be adopted that John will adapt for use at the OOC. Will need to see if existing v3 does properly cover the V2 use cases ; Vaccinations - is it in scope as a topic? There was agreement that the exisitng content presented by PhER is quite US/Canadian centric but that the underlying process is actually the same the world over. Where there are differences they will be small differences in processes rather than the information model. PhER has some specific requirements and we should look carefully at their models to be sure they are consistent. The original project statement made it a requirement that the PhER model should be consistent with the regular pharmacy models but they may have diverged.

OOC Content

Discussed agenda content and attendees expectations. Line and ?? Are very interested in attending for all three days. Ana is interested particularly for the institutional content but needs to see a more detailed agenda. Hugh will produce a more detailed agenda as soon as possible. There was general agreement that the first two days would be spent on Medication Statement and the third day would look at the more general institutional requirements. We expect to ballot the Medication Statement topic in May but the output of the third day will not necessarily be balloted until later - we do expect to become much clearer about the business processes though.

The Norwegian requirements are likely to be more clearly defined this week and if possible notes on their use cases and/or requirements will be provided for the conf call next week. If possible some notes on French requirements would be a great help. John will collate any material and circulate for review. Tanya will compare to Canadian practice.

Extend meeting next week to 90 minutes to allow scope discussion: Rob

Ballot Resolution

Suggestion made to merge Common Order and Common Dispense topics into a single topic but with all the same artefacts EXCEPT there would be a single set of application roles. Rob (on behalf of Tom) will ask Don if topics can be merged?

Agenda for Next Week

• Report on action items
• OOC Agenda and Preparation
  • Discussion of scope document from John
  • Further discussion of V2 content and V3 equivalence
  • Review of any requirements or use cases
• Remaining ballot resolution
• Harmonisation proposal
• AoB