This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Conference call minutes 29 January 2015

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 07:56, 30 January 2015 by Michael tan (talk | contribs) (Created page with "=Health Concern Topic= '''Patient Care WG''' '''January 29, 2015 ''' ==Attendees:== *Elaine Ayres – Scribe *Michael Tan – Chair *Larry McKnight *David Pyke Participatio...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Health Concern Topic

Patient Care WG

January 29, 2015

Attendees:

  • Elaine Ayres – Scribe
  • Michael Tan – Chair
  • Larry McKnight
  • David Pyke


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

Web Meeting Info www.webex.com Meeting number 239 836 807

AGENDA:

  • Ballot Reconciliation
  • Goals prior to Paris WGM:
  1. Publish Domain Analysis Model this spring.
  2. Review remaining ballot comments – 5 Negative Minors still remaining
    1. Ballot item 25 – Section 8.4.8 Patient with known condition vs. comorbidity? What is the use case? Comorbidity is the better term. Persuasive with mod.
    2. Ballot item 26 – page 7 Discussion of a concern in an assessment section of a note. A concern list is different from a problem list. A problem list will always be included in a concern list, but not all concerns will be related to problems on a problem list. Note – in FHIR a condition is the same thing as a concern and the tracking list is developed through each transaction. This is a flat history list of the names that you assigned to that problem. Some send concern events (as the condition object), and others are sending a problem on a problem list (this has a different lifespan). A concern is collecting observations of the same problem. Not persuasive with mod – not clear what commenter wishes to say. Will seek clarification.
    3. Voted on these two items: Against – 0, Abstain – 0, Approve – 3
    4. Item 27: page 21 Persuasive with mod – a care plan might be specific to an institution.
    5. Item 29: concern identifier is removed in the new diagram. The ballot comment is persuasive.
    6. Voted on these two items: Against – 0, Abstain – 0, Approve – 3