Conference call minutes 8 March 2016

Health Concern Topic

Patient Care WG

March 8th 2016

Attendees:

• Michael Tan – Chair/ Scribe
• David Pyke
• David Tao
• Russel McDonnel
• Dan Russler
• Michelle Miller

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

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

Minutes 1st March

• There were no remarks about the minutes of March 1st.
• Motion to approve by David Pyke, second by Michelle Miller
• Vote: 1 abstain, 0 oppose, 3 approve

Publication Calendar

• Focus of the call is to prepare the material for the publication
• We missed the initial content submission, which was last Sunday.
• We must produce our initial content this week and deliver it on Sunday ( Action Michael)
• Request Jay Lyle to send the EA export of the model and files to David Pyke a.s.a.p. ( Action Jay)
• David will add a text about priorities of concern's. ( Action David).
• David will send the edited Word document to Michael before Sunday 13th. ( Action David).
• Michael will send the DAM to the Patient Care list for the PC members.(Action Michael)
• Request to the members to review the content and suggests improvements, especially the story boards.
• Discuss the initial content in the conference call of Tuesday 15th March.
• The final content submission is March 27th.

DAM discussion

• Jay Lyle has made a new diagram with the suggestions from the previous meeting.

[[File:HealthconcernModel_20160223.png]

• Discussion arises about the diagram.
• Do we need to bring back the concern expresser? This could be a person, such as family member, who has no access to a system.
• Jay will reconsider.
• What do we want to capture in the logging for accountability? And on what level? What do we store? date, likelihood, severity?
• David Pyke suggests that date could also be done with a date connected to concern, instead of having the 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 to or detached from 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.
• David Tao has sent questions prior to the meeting. The text in the boxes for Concern Relationship and Event Relationship seem to be backwards.
• The list purpose and list kind in the concern list were not exhaustive. David will provide additional suggestions to add to concern list.
• The suggestion was also to look at the FHIR resource of LIST.
• The values "measures, comorbidity and in Patient/with known" where not clear. The explanation of these values can be found in the DAM document.

Action items

• Adjust the diagram and add a object class between health concern and concern events: Jay
• Propose text about priorities between health concerns: David
• Revise text in Patient Journey story chapter 7.1; Michael

Go back to health concern minutes[[1]]