Health Concern Topic

Patient Care WG

March 1st 2016

Attendees:

Participation Information Phone Number: +1 770-657-9270 Participant Passcode: 943377

Web Meeting Info www.webex.com Meeting number 238 558 505

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 the necessity to replace the other concern. They could be subconcerns or concerns with a common cause, but for another purpose ( speciality).
Jay Lyle asks if the value set is similar as the concern event relationship kind value set with the exception of morbidity and measures.

Go back to health concern minutes[[1]]