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
|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|
|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|
|Q3a||Magazine - 3rd Floor||20|| * Agenda: FHIR Admin and Change requests
* Nutrition Transitions of Care IG
Family Member History
|Patient Care||Accepted: FHIR-I||Michelle||Michelle|
|Q3b||TBD||NA|| * Agenda: SD Hosted Joint Quarter: C-CDA Score Card; Advance Directive Templates
* Meeting notes:
|Q4||Jefferson Ballroom - 3rd Floor||40|| * Agenda:
* 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|
|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|
||20||* Agenda: Clinician-On-FHIR Preperation meeting
* Meeting notes
|Q3||Jefferson Ballroom - 3rd Floor||NA|| * Agenda: Focus on BiologicallyDerivedProduct
Invited: CQI, CDS, Pharmacy, OO, PA, FHIR-I
|Q3b||TBD||NA|| * Agenda: Common Clinical Registry Framework
* Meeting notes:
|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|
|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
||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
|Q5||Ascot - 3rd Floor||NA||L-Forms demo; Simplifier demo||Patient Care||NA||NA|
|AM||Q1||St Charles Ballroom - 3rd Floor||ClinFHIR|
|Q2||St Charles Ballroom - 3rd Floor||ClinFHIR|
|PM||Q3||St Charles Ballroom - 3rd Floor||ClinFHIR|
Attendee List http://bit.ly/HL7PC_Attendees
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Attendees: see the online log
- Skin and wound CIMI model
- slide deck update provided by Susan Matney. (slide deck will be posted once available) Susan Matney CIMI Update Slides
- 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.
- DAM alignment
- capture cases well-represented
- usage cases needed
- 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