Joint Meeting Patient Administration / Patient Care Meeting minutes Sept 14 2006

Q1

Attendees:

CO Chair: WilliamGoossen

Scribe: Jeri Jones

Attendees:

William Goossen

Tom Oniki

Greg Seppala

Jeri Jones

Linda Mook

Susan Matney

Amit Popat

John Kufuor-Boakye

Laith Boussabah

Karim Keshavjee

Mary Ann Juurlick

Lloyd McKenzie

9:00 - 10:30 am Joint session Patient administration

Lloyd proposed motion

John seconded motion

Motion: Support for creation of a harmonization proposal to make the PatientEncounter Classto be a specialization of the CareProvision Class.

Discussion:

Lloyd: ’ you can have separatePatient Encounter Class from both the parent pa / pc DMIMs.

William: ‘the encounter requires an author.’ This from both the

administration and clinical views of the DMIMs

To make it possible, the Care Event CMET for Encounters must change the cardinality for encounter from 0..1 to 0..*

PA has Diagnosis versus the Condition in Patient Care. Patient Care is moving from condition to Concern. Concern is an Observation and this can be the diagnosis.

January 2006 Schedule for work with Concern Q1 Tuesday should have M & M / PA identifiers to distinguishType.

Episode of illness does not contain encounters while an Episode of Care has encounters.

HL7 should support analytic process and other types which are considered to like other ‘buckets[w1]’.

HL7 will develop wrappers for analysis and wrappers for cost.

Patient Administration will replace the component within encounters model to relate to one or many care provisions.

PA questioned do they have to harmonize with Care Provision the terms i.e. author, attender, etc. “This does not have to be determined at this point.”

VOTE:

For: 13

Against 0

Abstain 0

Action Item: Karim to develop the use caseand model by the end of November 2006

Q2 Administrative clean up Balloting Patient Care

CoChair: WilliamGoossen

Scribe: Jeri Jones

Attendees:

William Goosen

Susan Mathney

Dan Russler

Larry Mcknight

Mary Ann Jjurlick

Max Walker

Deb Konicek

Jeri Jones

11:00 - 12:30 pm

Agenda:

Publishing Facilitator Mary Ann Juurlinckidentified outstanding ballot work.

Comments for Ballot for Allergy Intolerance / Common Observation

Action to be taken:to be reviewed in conference calls

AllergyIntolerance Topic

  1. Loosen Constraints.

Persuasive:

Resolution: Experts to be in concert agreement with pharmacy. Experts from the Netherlands, Canadian, etc to participate in the AllergyIntolernace call.

Discussion

Allergy

How to do we set up publishing Rim Structure within Care Structure for documentation and use cases.

Rim Structure can be surrounded by wrappers: message, document etc.

Event, Request( message wrapper)

Discussion:

a)If a there are a ‘whole bunch of moods’ then publish in the care structure topic.

b)Do not mix messages and abstract structure in the same list

Action Item: Remove the event class from (A_allergyIntollerence. REPC_RM000321).

If the there is only one Mood then should not be in CareStructureTopics.All queries should be in one Topic.

Issue: Publishing wants to know how to handle topics

Can they put all queries together?

Action item: Approach M & M to provide clear instructions how to handle ( how to publish) various levels of abstractions in queries, control structures, Clinical Statement Patterns and Rim, Event and a Implementation guide. How do you publish queries across domains?

Responsible:John M. will attend M&M round table Wednesday night Sept14,2006.

Q3 /Q4 Joint Sessions with OO, SD

CoChair: Hans

Scribe: Jeri Jones

Attendees:

Co Chair: Hans Buitendijk / William Goossen

Scribe: Peter Kress / Jeri Jones

Attendees:

Hans Buitendijk

Calivin Beebe

Lee Coller

Richard Dixon-Hughes

Bob Dolin

Robert Dunlop

John Gilbertson

Hugh Glover

Jeri Jones

William Goossen

Mary Ann Juurlinck

Peter Kress

John Kufuor-Boakye

Rick Haddorff

Rob Hallowell

John Hatem

Rob Hausam
Andrew Hinckly

Hans Houben

Mike Kenig

Julie James

Mike Kenig

Ruth Kidd

Alexander Krans

Karim Keshavjee

Austin Kreisler

Thom Kuhn

Zhijing Liu

Carolyn Logan

Joann Larson

Patrick Loyd

Nira Manville

David Markwell

Susan Matney

Baryon Mattingly

Patrick Mitchell-Jones

Larry McKnight

Karen Nocera

Masaharu Obayashi

Mike Ostler

Craig Parker

Andrew Perry

Jari Porrasmaa

Diana Perez-Lopez

Dan Russler

Gunther Schadow

Tom Schultz

Amnon Shabo

Mark Sharfarman

Jeff Sutherland

Max Walker

Steve Wagner

Harry Solomon

Agenda:

Ballot Comments

Common Observations

Genomics

Motion: By Hans

2nd by Patrick

Motion: refer all typos to the Editors

For: 23

Abstain: 5

Negative: 0

1. Ballot Vote Neg Mi

Clinical Statement Section 1,2 Attributes Id A

Type disp: Persuasive

Issue: Attributes Id A subset of Clinical Id into the Clinical Statement requiring a different UUID.

Discussion:

What classes are we involved with this problem. Answer: Control Acts

How do you relate one to another in the summary?

Possible solutions

Include a Act Relationship which will allow the relate back to original source.

Change wording “subset” to “summary”

Change wording “all” to “any”

IF there is a different UUID then there has to be an Act relationship back to the original source.

Resolution: More discussion with M & M to give a general ruling

Motion: Lee

2nd Dan Russler
Motion: refer to M&M to get further direction for this use case

Vote:

4 Abstain

31 For

0 Negative

2. Ballot Vote: Neg Mi

Clinical Statement Section 1,2 Attributes Id A

Type disp: Persuasive

Issue: Control Act Id should be the id of the control act and should not be divided into these categories. This would seem to apply to the Clinical Statement

Discussion:

Resolution: Call it Control Act Id for now until M&M to resolve overall distinction. a general ruling

Motion submitted by: Han

2nd Peter
Motion: Call it Control Act Id for now until M&M to resolve overall distinction or a general ruling case.

Vote: Consensus

3. AQ Suggestion

TypeVote: Persuasive

Suggestion: Unique ID for Clinical Statement.

Discussion:

Resolution: Change requestthat we change the text to ii instead of uuid and other changes that would be required

4. same as above

  1. Withdraw

6. Issue: Removed the NegationInd out the Act but not out of the ActRelationship. Should be able completely remove out the model. Should not be optional in a concrete model.

Motion: Add text that states that in a implementable model it should not be optional model and that it may be constrained out.

For: 32

Against: 3

Abstain: 0

  1. Rim DEFAULTS ( should be False)

Motion: 2nd

Motion

Clarification from M& M regarding RIM defaults. Guidance for consistent use.

Neg 1

Abstain 8

For 26

Q4

Agenda: Common Observations

Genomics

Attendees:

See list above?

We are not clear about who was there from above list.

Bob Dolin CSD

Added new topics to Clinical Statement Topic

Wrote constraints on medical events and lab results.

SD and PC have both an interest in the Allergy/Intolerance Topic

Ballot comments

1. Ballot Vote: Neg Mj

Constraints are applied to clinical statement and Episode (interval of time) Elink.

Type disp: Persuasive

Issue: lack of consistency between the two areas Structure Document and Patient Care.

Resolution: Should be consistency between the two areas.

  1. Discussion: Orders and Observations proposal to create a CMET from the clinical statement.

Patrick provided explanation of the removed objects in development of this CMET

Patrik wants to ad back the ActRef

Motioned by Gunther

2ndyes, who is not clear from the minutes.

Motion: to accept and use Patrick’s CMET and defunct the old one. Recognize that this a more constrained version. ActRef will be added back in. The intent is tocreate a universal CMET in the future when all the requirements are available.

Vote:

For: 25

Against: 0

Abstain: 3

  1. Genome ballot issues

How is the Family History connected to the Clinical Statement?

Discussion:

Should it be connected or possibly the Universal CMET that will be developed be more appropriate.

Motion

William,

Gunther 2nd

Motion: Genome Ammon Shabo personnel to work with Patient Careto develop a consistent approach for the model (change choice box model name to Clinical InformationChoice Box, thus forming a combination of clinical and Genome) include appropriate classes from Clinical Statement that can be constrained.

Vote

For: 26

Against: 0

Abstain: 2

[w1]Cannot figure out what originally was meant here, William