Difference between revisions of "January 31st, 2012 CBCC Conference Call"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
Line 40: Line 40:
 
[[Community-Based_Collaborative_Care|Back to CBCC Main Page]]
 
[[Community-Based_Collaborative_Care|Back to CBCC Main Page]]
  
[[Category:Work_Group]]
 
[[Category:Domain_Experts_Steering_Division]]
 
 
[[Category:CBCC]]
 
[[Category:CBCC]]

Latest revision as of 06:20, 26 September 2013

Community-Based Collaborative Care Working Group Meeting

Back to CBCC Main Page

Meeting Information

Attendees

Back to CBCC Main Page

Serafina Versaggi described the approach used to specify standard-based value sets for coded attributes included in the BH Domain Analysis Model (subject of the May 2012 draft-for-comment ballot).

  • Clinical documentation in the electronic record is the primary source for codes used in billing. Since billing relies on ICD codes, if electronic record systems capture clinical data using SNOMED-CT natively, a transformation from SNOMED-CT to ICD must be performed. (ICD-9-CM until Oct. 2013 when ICD-10 will be the standard)
    • Cross walks between SNOMED-CT and ICD (9 & 10) already exist, as do cross walks between DSM-IV TR and ICD-9-CM, ICD-10
  • For some attributes (e.g., problems) our team has not constrained the coding system(s) to the suggested value set (e.g. DSM-IV, SNOMED-CT, etc) but instead simply recommends a valid coding system, or a node in the SNOMED-CT concept hierarchy (sub-hierarchy).
  • Problems/diagnoses and procedures with be the subject of revisions of the DAM for the May 2012 ballot (future work)
  • We will describe the analysis and mapping at a higher level by adding a slide after slide #3 (Terminology mapping overview)
  • It was pointed out that seriously mentally ill patients – acute care and BH care patients - are treated by the same source through two channels. These are currently merged resulting in an increased need for interoperability between specialty and primary care.

Issue #1: We need access to UB-04 code sets to determine whether there are appropriate values that can be used in various BH value sets, e.g., “referral codes”.

Issue #1: Gender identity is politically sensitive and we need more input from other stakeholders.

Issue #3: Sexual orientation is politically sensitive and we need more input from other stakeholders.

Action Items

  • We need to summarize the vocabulary mapping and any outstanding gaps (SV)
  • We need to revise the balloting road map for the work group

Meeting Adjourned at 1517 EDT


Back to CBCC Main Page