This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
January 2018 WGM New Orleans; Jan 27 to Feb 8
- Back to Patient Care
- Back to 2018 PCWG WGM Agenda and Minutes
New Orleans WGM - Jan 2018 Patient Care WG Meeting Draft/Approved agenda:
NOTE- to view WGM meeting minutes: follow the link for each quarter in Event column of the agenda below
Attendee List https://tinyurl.com/ydc62s7j
Agenda
| Day | Time | Qtr | Room | # | Event | Host | Joining | Chair | Scribe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sunday Jan 28 |
AM | Q1 | |||||||
| Q2 | |||||||||
| PM | Q3 | ||||||||
| Q4 | |||||||||
| Day | Time | Room | # | Event | Host | Joining | Chair | Scribe | |
| Monday Jan 29 |
AM | Q1 | Windsor - 3rd Floor | 20 | * Agenda: PCWG Admin
|
Patient Care | Michelle | Michael Tan | |
| Q2 | Jefferson Ballroom - 3rd Floor | 20 |
|
Patient Care | Accepted: SD, FHIR-I,EC | Michael | Jay | ||
| Q2b | TBD | NA | Podiatry Functional Profile Head | EHR | NA | TBD | |||
| PM | Q3 | Jefferson Ballroom - 3rd Floor | NA | * Agenda: Mega Report Out * Meeting notes - refer to EHRWG meeting minutes and Mega Report Out Slides * PCWG presentation slide deck: insert here |
EHR | Accepted: Patient Care | NA | Jay/Laura - Present; Emma - Scribe | |
| Q4 | Commerce - 3rd Floor | NA | * Agenda: Joint Session with FHIR & OO on FHIR workflow *Meeting Notes | FHIR-I | Accepted: PC | NA | Emma | ||
| Day | Time | Room | # | Event | Host | Joining | Chair | Scribe | |
| Tuesday Jan 30 |
AM | Q1 | Jefferson Ballroom - 3rd Floor | 40 | * Agenda: FHIR/PCWG - CIMI - Skin Care model meeting
* Meeting notes |
Patient Care | Accepted: CIMI, EC | Jay | Laura |
| Q2 | Magazine - 3rd Floor | 20 | * Agenda: FHIR Change requests * PHER will join PC to discuss the new OccupationalData resource CarePlan / Goal / CareTeam trackers
|
Patient Care | Declined: FHIR-I | Michelle | Michelle/Emma | ||
| PM | lunch | ? |
|||||||
| Q3a | Magazine - 3rd Floor | 20 | * Agenda: FHIR Admin and Change requests * Nutrition Transitions of Care IG Procedure
AllergyIntolerance
Family Member History
Condition
Workflow Alignment
|
Patient Care | Accepted: FHIR-I | Michelle | Michelle | ||
| Q3b | TBD | NA | * Agenda: SD Hosted Joint Quarter: C-CDA Score Card; Advance Directive Templates * Meeting notes: |
SD | NA | Emma | |||
| Q4 | Jefferson Ballroom - 3rd Floor | 40 | * Agenda: * Negation * harmonization across specification families * other vocab topics * Michael T to Pharmacy/BRR re medication knowledge * Meeting notes: |
Patient Care | Accepted: CIMI, Vocab, Clin Genomics, SD, OO | Jay | Emma | ||
| Day | Time | Room | # | Event | Host | Joining | Chair | Scribe | |
| Wednesday Jan 31 |
AM | Q1 | Magazine - 3rd Floor | 20 | * Agenda: FHIR Change requests - with OO representatives
|
Patient Care | Accepted: OO | Michelle | Emma |
| Q2 | Durham - 3rd Floor | NA | * Agenda: PA hosted joint meeting -- Episode of Care; Care Team * Should OrganizationRole be added to CareTeam? * Meeting notes: |
PA | Accepted: PC | NA | Michelle / Michael | ||
| PM | lunch | TBD |
20 | * Agenda: Clinician-On-FHIR Preperation meeting * Meeting notes |
Patient Care | Russ | Emma | ||
| Q3 | Jefferson Ballroom - 3rd Floor | NA | * Agenda: Focus on BiologicallyDerivedProduct Meeting notes: |
OO | Accepted: PC Invited: CQI, CDS, Pharmacy, OO, PA, FHIR-I |
NA | Michelle | ||
| Q3b | TBD | NA | * Agenda: Common Clinical Registry Framework * Meeting notes: |
CIC | Accepted: PC Invited: CQI |
NA | Laura | ||
| Q4 | Magazine - 3rd Floor | 30 | * Agenda: Allergy/Intolerance topic meeting. Drug list approach & Issues.
Allergy resource maturity * Meeting notes: |
Patient Care | Accepted: Pharmacy, Vocab | Jay | Michael T | ||
| Day | Time | Room | # | Event | Host | Joining | Chair | Scribe | |
| Thursday Feb 1 |
AM | Q1a | St James - 3rd Floor | 35 | Care Plan -invite FHIR, Structured Docs, Pharmacy
|
Patient Care | Accepted: Pharmacy, LHS, SD | Laura | Emma |
| Q1b | TDB | NA | Joint meeting with OO, CDS, PC, Templates (Note: editorial resp for V2 - Chapters 11 & 12) | OO | Accepted: Patient Care | NA | Rob H | ||
| Q2 | Jackson - 3rd Floor | 25 | Joint meeting with SD and Templates
|
Patient Care | Accepted: SD Invited: Templates |
Laura/Rob H/Jay | Emma | ||
| PM | lunch | TBD |
10 | Co-Chair Admin Meeting | Patient Care | Michelle | Michelle | ||
| Q3a | St James - 3rd Floor | 20 | *Agenda: FHIR Change Requests related to AdverseEvent
|
Patient Care | Accepted: BRR, FHIR-I | Michelle | Michelle | ||
| Q3b | TBD | NA | Joint meeting with CS, OO, and PC. * Meeting notes - PC Not Needed anymore |
CS | Accepted: Patient Care | NA | NA | ||
| Q4 | Norwich - 3rd Floor | NA | * Agenda: LHS - CareTeam DAM |
LHS | Patient Care | NA | Emma | ||
| Q5 | Ascot - 3rd Floor | NA | L-Forms demo; Simplifier demo | Patient Care | NA | NA | |||
| Day | Time | Room | Event | Host | Joining | Chair | Scribe | ||
| Friday Feb 2 |
AM | Q1 | St Charles Ballroom - 3rd Floor | ClinFHIR | |||||
| Q2 | St Charles Ballroom - 3rd Floor | ClinFHIR | |||||||
| PM | Q3 | St Charles Ballroom - 3rd Floor | ClinFHIR | ||||||
| Q4 | No meeting |
Meetings
Attendee List http://bit.ly/HL7PC_Attendees
Monday Q1
- Chair: Michelle Miller.
- Scribe: Michael Tan
- Approve minutes HL7 WGM September 2017:
- Motion: Laura Heermann Langford
- Second: Jay Lyle
- Approving the agenda of the current WGM. No additions and no corrections applied to the agenda.
- Demo from Michel Rutten about the FHIR registry. Combine with L-froms on Thursday Q5. See HL7 wiki agenda.
- DMP review: do we need to adjust the DMP?
- Quorum: Our current DMP requires 3 persons. We still tend to keep this quorum to have enough diversity of standpoints.
- Electronic voting: Our current DMP is identical to the standard DMP, but the section on the quorum does not seem viable, because it is difficult to calculate the 90% of a previous call or WGM.
- 3 options:
- Stick to the default DMP (90% of last meeting)
- Stick to the standard quorum. (co-chair +3, organizing person + 3))
- Equal to the amount of co-chair ( 7 people).
- Vote:
- 2 persons for option 1
- 4 persons for option 2
- 2 persons for option 3.
- Option 2 prevails. This means that PCWG will divert for the default DMP and use the same calculation the standard quorum calculation.
- Action Item for Michael Tan to add the adjustments to DMP.
- Chat.HL7.org.
- Wayne Kubrick has e-mailed a proposal to use Zulip as a chat platform.
- A chat fills a need for fast moving discussions. The FHIR folks usually Zulip for this purpose. The speed of the chat is too high for normal discussion.
- A list server discussion requires more structure and is more appropriate for a working group.
- Most attendants prefer to stick to e-mails thru the list server. Zulip can still be used occasionally for certain events such as the Clinicians on FHIR.
- Discussion on CIMI and the relationship with CDA.
- The CIMI should be responsible for the content.
- The CDA is more about infrastructure.
- There should be a CIMI management board. CIMI would guard that a CIMI product would be consistent in CDA, FHIR or V2. This CIMI management group would resemble the FHIR management group.
- There is a call for volunteers to join the CIMI chair. Jay is considering.
- Amit Popat reminds the attendees of a request from Austin about the future of HL7v2. This is planned for Monday Q3. **Amit is assigned as the official representative of Patient Care WG.
Monday Q2
- Chair: Michael Tan
- Scribe: Jay Lyle
Brett Marquard presented an approach for modeling Notes in FHIR. After grappling with some of the content questions, the team decided that the key differentiator is structure, and that a Note is likely a chunk of text, a document, a reference to a resource, or a mixture of these. This approach defers the definition of note content, supporting a richer variety of use cases, while supporting the ability to identify notes via some classification such as the LOINC document ontology.
- Most attendees felt this is a reasonable approach.
- MM: also address state changes, e.g., signature
- LM: docRef is for locating documents on servers. That could be changed.
- KB: But it shouldn’t, because you’ll break things that already work.
- Brett will arrange for this to be tested in the Cologne connectathon.
Alexander Henket presented an approach for recording SOAP notes as Compositions
- There is a draft profile on Simplifier
- Discussion ensued on whether Composition should contain text not derived from referenced resources.
- Decision on table: allow new content in Composition or create another resource.
Concern
- Do Condition & Linkage support requirements for Concern? Suggested it does, if Linkage supports heterogeneous resources. Others dissent.
- Clinical Impression maturity
- Maturity is low. PC priorities are currently focused on advancing most mature resources.
Monday Q3
- Meeting notes - refer to EHRWG meeting minutes and Mega Report Out Slides
- Scribe: Emma Jones
Monday Q4
- See here for Attendees list
- Chair: Lloyd
- Scribe (PC): Emma Jones
- FHIR workflow - project run by FHIR-I
- Objective 1 - consistency in recording what need to be done with what was done
- Objective 2 - to define and make clear to folks the different ways to ask for something to be done and not rely only on the request resource but to follow-up on whether it was done.
- Workflow was to increase the consistency.
- Focus for this session
- Workflow reports that identified request or event patterns that need to be fully aligned or intentional not. Allows override. Some workgroups have done this. Impoertant to do this if hte resource is moving to normative (# or above)
Once that is done, the workflow project will review. Want to encourage consistency where they can get.
- Look at the patterns - some changes have occurred since STU 3
- exampleScenario resource - hope to have it publishable as part of STU4. A mechanism for seeing the different flows related to the original request.
- Provide review of what exists in the workflow space
Review workflow space
- Patterns - Request, Event
- Workgroups should have received an xml file
- for things that should not have the pattern applied paste into the suppressedIssues to make if clear this is a conscious decision to not apply the workflow pattern
- Patterns should not drive decisions. Implementations should drive decisions.
- For care plan - PC has a change request against carePlan.instantiates to have a reference + uri.
exampleScenario
- new resource - ExampleScenario
- Overview of what this resource does
- May be in the May ballot
- when working on scenarios will be able to see this
- Allows an out if a resource is not used as part of the scenario
- Is available to start playing with the resource.
- Hope to have this built into the build project
- Explore introducing this into CoF on Friday
- See here for an example - Jose Example
- May want to start with a smaller set and maintain the deltas between them
- May tie into the vision of where we want parts of the connecthathon to go into cross track scenarios
- Indepth discussion about the degree of the examples that is also needed for clinical examples.
Change requests
- Describe relationship between FHIR workflow and Healthcare Business Process happening in OMG
- Consider applying the SOA work to workflow
- Workflow calls are mondays and wednesdays at 2 pm EST
- This quarter continues at next WGM - FHIR-I will host.
Tuesday Q1
Attendees: see the online log
- Skin and wound CIMI model
- slide deck update provided by Susan Matney. Susan Matney CIMI Update Slides
- See the slide deck to see how this work aligns with previous DAM work.
- The slide deck also discusses the different Terminology work occurring in this area.
- Link to the CIMI browser http://www.clinicalelement.com/cimi-browser/#/
- Link to Open CEM Browser http://www.opencem.org/#/
- Governance question re: when are CIMI models approved? Ans = acceptance by the CIMI group, but also to ballot through HL7. The question is the level that gets balloted. Balloting works ok for the major patterns - but balloting each individual model will not work too well. It may need to be a crowdsourcing approach of reporting on successful use for those.
- How do CIMI compliant claims get validated? - it is up to CIMI, validating models is not up to implementers - but there is not any type of process or people set up to approve these yet. That process needs to be determined and put in place. Will also need to look at how to validate equivalence.
- slide deck update provided by Susan Matney. Susan Matney CIMI Update Slides
- Adverse Event update provided by Claude - work has started but it will be continuing, Please contact Claude Nanjo if you are interested to join future calls.
Tuesday Q2
Occupational data for health
- Goal is to align with other resources
- Has population health use
- CDS alignment with these data elements.
- FHIR resource in the ballot modeled around what was done in CDA.
- Content
- employment status
- retirement status
- combat zone
- usual occupation
- PastOrPresent Jobs
- etc
- New information trying to get into the clinical health record
- Currently systems are collecting usual occupation for cancer reporting
- Working with a couple of clinical settings about collecting the data - 3 engagements have been using work around
- Billing collects some information but not for social history purposes
- also have a functional profile htat is balloted
- Valuesets harmonization is needed.
- expectation is this data will be collected by EHRs
- Case reporting - if there is an opportunity to collect the data there should be a means of getting the data collected
- CDS - if patient has refractory diabetes, ask about their work - this is not the use case for this
- Need to recognize there is a challenge for capturing the data in a clinical setting. Should Public Health be collecting this data directly?
- Public Health does collect this data during an investigation. Illegal for collecting the data in advance
- Working on a FHIR app so the patient can provide the data.
- Also want to assist the care provider in facilitating awareness of certain predisposing situations
- May not be collected by the care provider but can be collected by academia and schools
- Is academia and school related work in scope for this resource?
- Students was in the occupation scope but was removed because not within the boundary because it did not meet the definition of work (census does not record homemaker and student as occupations)
- Do we need to expand the boundary for common practice? Could include based on local use. Need to define where the boundaries are.
- Agreement on being transparent about scope
- Students was in the occupation scope but was removed because not within the boundary because it did not meet the definition of work (census does not record homemaker and student as occupations)
- Suggest scope and boundaries around observation - as it relates to social history. The resource does not reference observation
- Questionaire can contain social history
- Observation can contain social history
- could live in observation as an option (profile observation)
- can use a profile to make the observation more specific to occupation data.
- Next steps - either invite PC to PHER call if assistance needed or come to PC Thursday FHIR calls
Trackers
Tuesday Q3
Tuesday Q4
Agenda
- Negation
- capture cases well-represented
- usage cases needed
- Harmonization
- Does PC specify value sets, or only semantics of value sets?
- Is PC responsible for maintenance and harmonization of value sets?
- Can PC suggest FHIR use SD values, or vice versa?
- Should FHIR data type policy trump interoperability?
- Does legacy momentum count? I.e., should C-CDA have more weight than FHIR?
- Or realm? I.e., should FHIR have more weight than C-CDA?
- Should PC simply specify values in the DAM and expect SD & FHIR to conform?
- Or maintain concept maps for divergent value sets?
- Who should be in the discussion
