Difference between revisions of "LHS May 2018 Cologne Agenda"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 58: Line 58:
 
***Suggest the US is not the best place to start model based on. canada and europeans have done this.  
 
***Suggest the US is not the best place to start model based on. canada and europeans have done this.  
 
***Suggestion that the go forward plan is to pick a simplier one.  
 
***Suggestion that the go forward plan is to pick a simplier one.  
***take the existing careteam FHIR resource and start from there. Bringing a FHIR model into CIMI is trivial.
+
***Suggestion made to take the existing careteam FHIR resource and start from there. Bringing a FHIR model into CIMI is trivial.

Latest revision as of 13:22, 21 May 2018

  • Co-chairs
    • Russ Leftwich, MD (attending)
    • John Roberts (attending)
  • Agenda
    • Wednesday Q3 - Business meetingBusiness med.gif
    • Thursday Q1 - meeting jointly with Patient Care WG - Care Plan/Care Team topic.

Icons:

  • Business med.gif Business meeting
  • Reconciliation med.gif Ballot Reconciliation meeting
  • Technical med.gif Technical discussion

Thursday Q4

Agenda Overview

Further discussion - what are the boundaries between patient care and LHS? No other workgroup have a system wide view. All work groups are at the domain level. Take care team as an example. Care teams are typically at the patient care level - does not take into account public health and research. Same apply to care management. When something is rejected because of CDS - what is the feedback loop? or if the clinician rejects a recommendation? what is the feedback loop? the care team is a gap from a learning health systems. the idea came from IOM - has 14 articles about LHS but is has not been implemented.

  • Approval of DMP

1 abstain; 0 against; 6 for.

  • Meeting times for Baltimore - Will continue this quarter in Baltimore
  • Call times - Continue 4pm EST on Wednesday
  • Other business
    • Invitation to PA - need a more specific agenda.
      • representation of community providers in health systems is very difficult.
      • representation of total expenditure for medicaid for the whole US has non-clinical expenditure higher than clinical expenditure.
  • Modeling for care team DAM
    • Some work done with Claude with goal of creating CIMI models for a comment only ballot
    • CIMI model is re-considering their basic approach.
    • CIMI has learned about FHIR workflow models and CIMI has patterns. ToDo - CIMI folks are planning on joining the FHIR workflow calls to see where CIMI has extra

things and how the work in both speces come together. Need to have the mapping patterns to compare the different. there is also discussions about the need to change CIMI modeling tool

    • what is the problem that CIMI solves for us? Its implementation independent, specification of the semantics required from the clinical perspective. Include emphasis

on the terminology. the structure and the content from the clinical perspective.

    • CIMI has discussed exploring the use of structureDefinition to address CIMI modeling needs. Still investigation. Should not have any implications for Care team.
    • Discussion about the care team modeling work. See notes here
      • Currently in the requirements gatherign stage. Next is the modeling. Do a comparison to FHIR - see if need to do propose modifications to FHIR.
      • OpenAir CIMI representation
      • Logical FHIR representation.
      • Discussion about how care teams are represented in EHRs today and how does it relates to CIMI?
      • Suggestion to take a practical approach to this.
      • Claude need examples from the field - will be helpful.
      • Suggest the US is not the best place to start model based on. canada and europeans have done this.
      • Suggestion that the go forward plan is to pick a simplier one.
      • Suggestion made to take the existing careteam FHIR resource and start from there. Bringing a FHIR model into CIMI is trivial.