2010-10-04 PA WGM Minutes

Patient Administration Work Group Meeting - Monday October 4, 2010

Monday Q3

HL7 Patient Administration Meeting Minutes Location: Parlor 211		Date: 2010-10-04 Time: Monday Q3
Facilitator	Gregg Seppala	Note taker	Alex de Leon
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Gregg Seppala	VHA
X	Jay Zimmerman	HL7 Canada
X	Jane Daus	McKesson
X	Wendy Huang	Canada Infoway
X	Barry Guinn	EPIC
X	Line Saele	Helse Vest IKT Norway
X	Morten Myhre	Helse Vest IKT Norway
X	Adri Burggraaff	HL7 Netherlands
X	Alex de Leon	Kaiser Permanente
Quorum Requirements Met (Chair + 4 members): Yes

Agenda

Agenda Topics

1. Welcome/Introductions
2. Agenda review and approval
   • Motion: Approve agenda as published on 9/20/2010
3. Review Mission and Charter
4. New Decision Making Practices review and approval
   • Motion: Approve revised Decision Making Practices as published on 9/28/2010
5. SWOT review
6. Work Plan review

Supporting Documents

• Cambridge Agenda (2010-09-20)
• Mission and Charter (2010-01-19)
• Current Approved DMP (2009-05-13)
• Revised DMP Draft (2010-09-14)
• PA SWOT (2010-01-18)
• Work Plan (2010-02-01)

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

1. Welcome/Introductions
2. Review and Approve Agenda
   • Motion (made by Jay / seconded by Alex): Approve agenda as is
   • Vote: 8 / 0 / 0 (for, against, abstain)
3. Review Mission & Charter
   • The HL7 Process Improvement work group issued a new generic Decision Making Process template. Each work group was requested to review their existing DMP to see whether it covers all the issues addressed by the new generic DMP. Gregg drafted a new DMP for PA based on the generic DMP and the current PA DMP (See Revised DMP Draft (2010-09-14). That was sent to the PA list for consideration on September 28. The new DMP is very similar to our current DMP except that it provides more clarity regarding email voting. In our last revision we removed proxy voting and added email voting but we were not very specific about our procedures surrounding email votes.
   • Motion (made by Jay / seconded by Jane): Accept revised DMP as posted to the list server on September 28, 2010
   • Discussion: Further discussion was held, with clarification that the quorum for the PAWG being chair plus 4 members
   • Vote: 8 / 0 / 0
4. SWOT discussion
   • WG reviewed the SWOT and agreed that the environment is the same. No changes made. Still valid.
5. Review Work Plan
   • The WG reviewed the work plan as it was January 1, 2010. Service Delivery Location, Provider Registry and Organization Registry were originally scheduled to peer-review for May 2010 with DSTU in January 2011. This will more than likely have to change. So, the WG is aware that this schedule will have to change by the end of this week when these items will be discussed in more detail. For now, the WG sees no changes to the work plan as it is.

Meeting Outcomes

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) Gregg to submit revised DMP to webmaster@hl7.org and to PIC work group

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items .

Monday Q4

HL7 Patient Administration Meeting Minutes Location: Parlor 211		Date: 2010-10-04 Time: Monday Q4
Facilitator	Gregg Seppala	Note taker	Alex de Leon
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Gregg Seppala	VHA
X	Jay Zimmerman	HL7 Canada
X	Jane Daus	McKesson
X	Wendy Huang	Canada Infoway
X	Barry Guinn	EPIC
X	Line Saele	Helse Vest IKT Norway
X	Morten Myhre	Helse Vest IKT Norway
X	Adri Burggraaff	HL7 Netherlands
X	Alex de Leon	Kaiser Permanente
Quorum Requirements Met (Chair + 4 members): Yes

Agenda

Agenda Topics

1. V3 Work - Interdependent Provider Registry Proposal
   • Scope
   • Timelines
   • Deliverables
   • Resources

Supporting Documents

• Ron Parker Presentation from Rio
• PA_Interdependent_Registries

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

1. Interdependent Registry Scope
   • The WG reviewed slides presented by Ron Parker at Canada Infoway to PAwg at the Rio meeting, describing the interdependency of the various registries (e.g. service delivery location, provider registry, organization registry, etc.) Observation was made that some of these interdependent registries are RIM class role based registries (organization, provider, service delivery) while others are ACT based registries (Health program, Health service, etc.) registries that might be overseen by other WG domains.
   • Gregg presented wiki page summarizing possible needs for the US realm. Gaps were identified (e.g. HITSP/IS03 (Consumer Empowerment and Access to clinical information via Networks) and HITSP/CAP121 (Communicate Referral Request)). Further slides not in the original presentation were viewed that defined more gaps, business needs and use cases as well as other efforts for interdependencies of registries based on provider needs.
   • The scope of this work would be Provider, Person, Patient, Service Delivery location, Organization registries. The WG has questions whether the group’s scope includes Device. Health Program and Health Service would, for now, be placeholders for defining within which group the scope would lie.
   • The WG discussed the possible need for an application registry.
2. Timeline
   • Jay explained that for Canada, the interdependencies framework needs to be in place and implemented by 2015. Working back, this means that the standards that might govern this, would have to be complete within 18 months or by the end of 2012. It was decided that there would be a DSTU cycle to allow for feedback and change without too many changes to try to track and implement. This means that final DSTU would have to be approved 01/2012, with normative in 02/2013 (work being performed in the 05/2012 and 09/2012). The WG could work on a Domain Analysis Model (DAM) in 01/2011 and ballot in 05/2011, which would move the work on this forward quicker.
3. Deliverables
   • The WG would need use cases, requirements from those use cases, in support of this effort. This includes the updated DAM to include interdependent registries information. The DAM will include both a dynamic model and a static model.
4. Resources
   • The WG discussed the need for resources, noting that volunteers may not be sufficient for moving this effort forward. Canada, Jay, will assist with the DAM analysis, while the VA has offered help in the form of a resource to review once the DAM analysis has been complete.
5. Conclusions
   • Since this is a requirement from Netherlands and Australia, their representatives should review the requirements. The WG proposed finding more interested entities to review requirements.
6. Motion (Jay /Wendy) Move to adjourn for the day Vote: 8 /0 / 0
7. Adjourn at 5pm

Meeting Outcomes

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) Jay to review and update the personnel management DAM to include content to support interdependent registries.

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items .

Navigation

• Go To Tuesday Minutes
• Go To Wednesday Minutes
• Go To Thursday Minutes
• Return to PA October 2010 WGM

© 2010 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.