This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

PA ConCall 20090211

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 18:08, 28 October 2010 by Gseppala (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Return to Patient_Administration

HL7 PA Conference Call 2009-02-11

Purpose: Determine if we should go forward with balloting Appointment CMETs for Scheduling

  • Attendees: Jean Ferraro, Gregg Seppala, Irma Jongneel, Yongjian Bao, Wendy Huang, Jay Zimmerman, Norman Daoust, Leslie Flaherty, Yvonne Pynacker, Patrick Loyd, Rene Spronk

Appointment CMET Discussion

Note: PA does not have scheduling in Mission Charter yet – waiting for approval.

Rene states that current A_Appointment Universal is not a universal version but is a constrained version and is most in line with identified confirmable CMET pattern

  • Proposal: Publish this existing CMET model as identifiable confirmable with different identifier. .
  • Discussion: What would be in universal A_Appointment? All other variations need to be derived from the universal variant.

Norman asked why create a universal version if there is not a current requirement or use case?

A universal version will support all use cases that have been given so far. We need a universal version to derive other flavors such as informational.

Rene commented that not all information in the Appointment RMIM is required in the universal variant. In general, universal CMETS focal act has full detail but outer edges of model might only need to have IDs.

Participations and act relationships in universal? These are use case driven and not required for the current Norweigian use case.

Most attributes and associations are optional in universal varients. We could add constraints as required in the future for other use case varients.

Should this be a ballot for comment only for new universal to help determine what the actual requirements are? The identifiable confirmable would have to be on normative track.


Rene made motion and Norman seconded motion:

A motion made to create new universal CMET for comment only ballot

A motion made to move forward with rework of identified-confirmable for normative ballot

  • Vote
    • For 10
    • Against 0
    • Abstain 0

Future Work Items

  1. Community based Health Care proposal from Yvonne
  2. Registry work
  3. Encounter work from Rene for Norwegian use cases
  4. Rene has work and requirements for Appointments query
  5. Canadian harmonization proposals

PA agreed to schedule conference calls for every other week Wednesday 11:00 AM starting 2/25

Agenda for 2/25

Harmonization proposals required for next ballot

Open Action Items

  1. Confirm process with publishing for changing existing CMET model with different id as identifiable-confirmable - Gregg
  2. Create new universal CMET - Gregg
  3. Add Canadian harmonization proposals to Wiki for review before next call- Jay/Wendy - by 2/23
  4. Schedule recurring conf calls - Jean - by 2/13