Card Tech Minutes 2017.01.11

Attendees

Chris Melo, Philips - co chair

Nick Gawrit, Heartbase - co chair

Paul Dow, ACC - secretary

Dan Murphy, Epic

Antje Schroeder, Healthineers

Charles Thomas, University of Washington

Rebecca Baker, ACC

Minutes

Review NCDR EP Suite ICD 2.2 registry comparison with EPRC-IE profile - Dan Murphy

Dan compared RCS-EP to look at what matches EPRC-IE [was done with ver 2.1], which focuses on the procedure vs. the whole admission. He then looked more closely at each element as much as he could. There are a fair amount of changes, estimated to be around 50% of fields, from 2.1 to 2.2 that went away, or new fields that were introduced. Items like cardiomyopathy split into two fields. The larger question is what can we do with these sorts of versioning changes? That also gets into what sort of updates will be needed for the procedure note to be suitable for registry submission? Reusing what's created during the procedure note, e.g. structured reporting, may be the solution. Perhaps the reconciliation takes place outside of the value sets, if the registry requires fewer points of data than a typical procedure notes. There are many ACC-specific value codes that are unique to this situation. For example they use terms like a month rather that discrete time stamps. The clinicians want the raw data. The other risk is for patients who may be poor historians. For example, remembering an exact year a specific intervention occurred. An another item to consider is that we may be adding items that are not being collected by the NCDR for the next several years. As we discuss these further, the procedure note and the value set harmonization may be out of scope for this profile. Our objective is to collect the relevant data in the procedure note. There are limits for data which may not be of interest to patients. Jimmy Tcheng is the lead author for Cath Report Health Policy Statement published in in JACC in 2014. These had no recommendations to mapping back to clinical data registries. Rather recommendations for best practices note structure.

Eventually, we will end up with one structure for all types of reporting. Possibly including STS, ESC, and other groups to harmonize this across the House of Cardiology. One large question is how do we handle versioning, in a larger shared environment. One possible goal, is to have the registries accept the report the raw data, then internally extract the data required. It would make it so much easier for providers to submit data and re-purpose the documents created by clinicians. There will always be a tension between clinicians who have a goal for their work product, and the registries who have specific requirements for data bench-marking and research.

Dan will upload his documents to the FTP site.

Update on Art-Decor tooling

Chris Melo has contacted Eric Poisseau regarding access to the Art Decor servers. So far, he has had no response. Chris will be at an HL7 meeting next week and will follow up.

Update on PCC PMDT profile

We're heard from Barry Brown at Mortara, regarding the request for use cases regarding the Point of Care Medical Device Tracking profile from the Patient Care Coordination Domain. Any other case studies that you feel shoudl be included should be submitted to Chris via e-mail before 1//18.

• Deferred Until Next Meeting

Review Final Text ACC CathPCI Procedure Note Document versus CRC profile - Nick Gawrit

Jimmy Tcheng has been invited to join the conversation on the 1/18.

Cardiology Technical Committee