Conference call minutes 15 December 2015

Health Concern Topic

Patient Care WG

December 15 2015

Attendees:

• Michael Tan – Chair
• David Pyke
• David Tao
• Jay Lyle
• Emma Jones
• Dan Russler
• Darell Woelk
• Laura Heermann Langford

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

Web Meeting Info www.webex.com Meeting number 249 522 346

Minutes previous meeting

• There were no comments about the minutes of the previous meeting.
• Motion to approve: David, second: Jay. Vote: 7 in favor, 0 abstain, 0 against.

Topics

• Jay has written a suggestion to explain the difference between a problem concern and a health concern.
• This suggestion was sent earlier on the 15th to the patient care list.
• In general readers felt, that a problem concern and consequently also the problem list were the tools with which care providers would work, while health concern and a concern list would be the topic under which patient concerns would reside.
• The first part of this statement might be true, but health concern are not the exclusive ownership of patients for patient's concern. Any person including care providers could make use of health concerns. Problem concerns could be a subset of a health concern, that would have a longer span and could connect evolving problem concerns together.
• This is true about the conceptual model of a health concern, but David Tao has an issue with the implementation in MU3, where straightforward specifications are required for IT vendors. They need to know in which sections to put the care providers concern and the patient's concern.
• Michael points out that it is important to recognize that there are 2 steps in working with concerns.
• The first step is the registration of concern events. A concern author/ custodian identifies a concern. (I.e. "I want to collect information under the grouping of Diabetes") and selects which elements ( called health concen events in the DAM) are relevant for this health concern.
• The second step is to produce output, such as a CCDA for transition of care. This could be a half automated step in which filtering could take place.
• Filtering could take place depending on protocols or agreements between specialism's. An ophtamologist requires a different information than a dietitian.
• For this purpose it could be necessary to identify the type of information on the concern or concern event.
• The author/ custodian of the health concern is also an indication of the source of the concern. It could be the patient, or it could be the cardiologist and with this method you can identify which elements are relevant for the cardiologist.
• The alternative to a push mechanism, where you send a TOC document, would be a pull mechanism where the receiver would ask for information which he considers relevant for treatment of that specific patient. This scenario is not yet common, although we do see more queries.

• This has to be checked with the description about the regulations.
• The chapters 4, 5 and 6 were thoroughly revised and shortened.
• * MU3 does need rules of how to build your sections and subsections and how to use the templates. These are guidelines for implementation, that will set restrictions to the nesting and grouping of health concerns and problem concerns.
• PCWG will remain responsible for the functional requirements of Health Concern. SDWG will focus on the technical requirements of Health Concern in structured docs.

The document can be found here: File:Current DAM.docx

Action items

• Jay will function as a liaison between PCWG and SDWG for harmonization of Health Concerns between these groups.

Go back to health concern minutes[[1]]