September 2012 WGM Baltimore
PC Baltimore WGM 2012 September
Contents
PC Monday Sep 10 2012
Plenary
PC Monday Q3
Present: Michael Tan, Stephen Chu, Kevin Coonan, William Goosen, Hugh Leslie, Jon Farmer, Chris White, Isebella Gibaud, Adel Ghlamallah
Motion to accept the minutes of the May WGM - Vancouver: Moved Stephen, Second Hugh, 1 abstain, 0 against, 6 for - passed.
Planning for the rest of the week
September Ballot - Quorum was met and all four were complete with only one neg which was withdrawn.
Patient Care Work Plan Review: Review 3 year work plan. Discussion about V2 materials and need for continued development of the V2 messages. Lots of V2 messaging is still ongoing.
Motion: To accept the changes to the work plan (see published spreadsheet). Stephen Moved, Chris White Second - 0 against, 0 abstain, 8 in favour.
PC Monday Q4
O&O - see O&O minutes
PC Tuesday Sep 11 2012
PC Tuesday Q1
Present:William Goossen (Chair), Michael Tan (Scribe), Michael van Campen, Susan Matney, Jean Henri Duteau, Line Andersen, Hugh Leslie, Irma Jongeneel,
The topic of this quarter is the ballot reconciliation. The good news is that the DMIM now has reached the normative status. One negative comment has been submitted, but no comment was sent in. Therefore the negative vote had to be ignored.
A motion has been put to remove DerivationExpr from the walkthrough.
There are 9 entry points of which 3 are not mentioned to the Clinical Statement. Decision to add the 3 entry points to the text of the walkthrough.
The text from the “ServiceDeliverylocation” will be removed.
Jean has to add “status-code”to the act of Transportation .
The 3 variants of “source of” has to be explained. William to add the text. And the Pertinent2 text has to be removed.. The numbers of the act relationship has to be adjusted. The text about authorization has to adjusted.
On the missing diagram, remove the link to the graphic nr.31.
A picture from Isobel Frean’s document has been copied and used as storyboard diagram 33. Decision to let William and Michael to find the pictures or create them once more.
Please look at the remarks on the ballot reconciliation [spreadsheet][1].
A motion was put forward to accept the comments and the dispositions. The motion was put forward by Irma Jongeneel, seconded by Jean Duteau. 0 against, 0 abstain and 11 in favor.
Suggestion to add wording to the ballot material to explain that the standard is co-owned by the patient administration. The DMIM will only be changed in joint meetings with PA and PC. Motion forwarded to make this a formal decision. 0 against, 0 abstain, and 12 in favor. Add text to explain that the RMIM’s are explained in the separate sections of patient care and patient admin. Also explain in the visio of the DMIM.
The negatives votes from Gunther Shadow and Keith Boone have to be withdrawn before the material can be submitted for normative publication. William will approach Keith and Gunther. Action Item WGo. If they do not withdraw their negative votes the PC will follow the normal procedure to vote. This motion has been accepted: 0 against, 0 abstain and 12 in favor.
The visio and the text of the Care Record Query were not in line. Michael had added extra parameters to the query on request of Patient Administration (such as the location of the encounter). However Irma could not remember this request. Therefore the extra parameters will be removed.
William questions whether the care record query should really also be a joint topic between PA and PC, rather than a specific query for PA. A new project scope should be submitted to discuss this subject. A motion was put forward to withdraw the extra parameters from the Care Record Query and to discuss the addition of these parameters in a new project for a future version. The motion was accepted: 0 against, 0 abstain and 12 in favor.
PC Tuesday Q2
Present: Terri Monk, Martin Hurrell, John Walsh, Michael van Campen, Susan Matney, Michael Tan, Kevin Coonan, William Goossen
Joint Anaesthesia and PC William Goosens on Clinical Statement: Clinical statement proper is now being used rather than care statement. Each specific clinical content material needs a further profiling of the clinical statement pattern. ObservationVitalSigns – has been balloted as DSTU in 2007 and extension in 2009 but expired in 2011. So not currently in use. Statement Collector R-MIM allows you to collect statements together – list of vital signs. Patient connected device in OR – ie wave form 200 hz from ECG, patient monitors or reading every 15-30 seconds. Translates to a lot of readings. Too many to associate context with each reading. Kevin suggests context conduction as a solution. Martin Hurrell: 11073 – is relevant balloted vital signs standard. Discussed Kevin’s mind map of heart rate. Discussed CIMI and openEHR models - history model in openEHR Reconciliation of 11703 is important as many clinical models don’t deal with devices well. Possibly Motion: That Anaesthesia and Patient Care WGs seek to create a project scope statement with Healthcare Devices WG for vital signs representation in V3. Moved William Goosen, Seconded Susan Matney. Abstain 0, Against 0 , For 9 Is this development for CDA r2 or CDA r3? V3 would enable us to drop into CDA r3. Motion: Amend previous motion to add Emergency Care WG along with Healthcare Devices WG. Moved: Terri Monk, Seconded: Martin Hurrell Abstain 1, Against 0, For 7
PC Tuesday Q3
Present:
PC Tuesday Q4
Present:
PC Wednesday Sep 12 2012
PC Wednesday Q1
Hosting PHER and CIC
Present: Margaret Ditloff, Isabelle Gibaud, Nathan Bunker, Rob Savage, Ken Pool, Anita Walden, Dianne Reeves, Meredith Nah, Hugh Leslie, Kevin Coonan, William goossen, Sandy Marr, Jim McClay, Floyd Eisenburg, Laura Heermann, Susan Matney
Patient Care – Wednesday Q1 – Hosting PHER and CIC Agenda – updates from PC, PHER and CIC Patient Care update Patient Care materials – longstanding development since 2000. Clinical statement developed from UK work by Charlie Bishop. William gave overview of clinical statement. Kevin Coonan gave overview of Health Concern – Kevin wants to significantly rework this model. Discussed the allergy/intolerance work. Discussion of problem list problem. Good feedback.
CIC update – Cardiovascular release 2 DAM has been published. Two new projects – mental health Dam and C? CIC are producing informative ballots. DAM discussion – UML may not be the best methodology. Data elements need to be packaged for the best view by clinical domain experts. Collaboration and harmonisation is an issue for DAM creation. PHER update – V3 immunisation message – successful ballot – passed resoundingly. Continue update – Wednesday Q1 at the next meeting.
PC Wednesday Q2
Present:
PC Wednesday Q3
Present:
Joint meeting with CIC, Emergency, PHER
Registry DAM/DCM/ CS Templates
- There is a need from CIC for a DAM registry and repository. This is also a common need for search need of DAM’s, templates and DCM. We use the templates very often in the domain of Patient Care.
- There has been discussion in Vancouver about the setup of a registry. This was reuse of a general repository that would be used for templates. Anita does not the name of the project. This would open up the possibility to store DAMS as well.
- OpenEHR has also set up a registry for Archtypes. This includes the governance of the model.
- Hugh states that maintenance is important, because a user will rely on the presence of a particular version. This cannot be changed without the proper procedures.
- Currently about 18 DAMS can be found on the HL7 Inc website. The list is not complete, but it is not known who maintains the list.
- It is also important to know which DAMS are in the pipeline and only the balloted ones.
- William suggests to maintain the DAMS on a special WIKI.
- Motion: The joint groups agree to post the DAMS to a single wiki. There is already a entry, which was created by Rene Spronk;
- Vote of the motion: 11 in favor, 0 negative, 0 abstain.
- Action item: Anita will setup / maintain the meta-data of the DAMS. ( look at Clinical Statement Change request template). We will do a poll on the contents of the meta-data before the next meeting. Anita will send a signal to William if her concept of meta-data information is ready.
- Each TC will submit there own entries on the WIKI.
- Action item: Kevin will change the index so that the page for DAMS will show up in the index.
- Action item: William will arrange the doodle pool on the vote for the meta-data. He will receive a signal from Anita.
PSS for DDF (Dam developement framework)
- The joint group has a need to create guidelines for DAMS (DAM framework). A Project Scope Statement might be required.
- The suggestion is to use HL7 Development Framework as an example. However the HDF will be revised. Advise has to be asked to M&M how to carry on.
- Action item: Kevin to ask M&M about our intention and the question who picks up the work and owns the project.
- Other issues:
- Conceptual models, Logical models
- Data element guidance.
- Coherence between different artefacts. ( discuss with Huffnagel)
- Best practices and experiences with DAMs
- Clarifying the purpose of the DAM.
- Use cases.
Assessment Scales RMIM
- Measurements can be put as separate scores.
- A grouper to bind the separate measurement to form a total score.
- Motion: to bring the Assessment Scale Material back to ballot:
- Vote: In favor 10, 0 against, 0 abstain.
- Action item:: Michael and William will prepare the material for ballot and submit a ballot request.
PC Wednesday Q4
Present:
PC Thursday Sep 13 2012
PC Thursday Q1
Participants list and meeting minutes - please see the powerpoint slide deck
PC Thursday Q2
Present:
PC Thursday Q3
Present:
PC Thursday Q4
Present:
