PCCTech Minutes 2012 02 06

Onsite Attendees: Anne Diamond, Laura Heermann Langford, Tone Southerland, Mike McCoy, Thom Kuhn, Emma Jones, Isabelle Gibaud, Keith Boone, Laura Bright, Denise Downing, Patty Craig, Robert Breas, Vincent Van Pelt, Abderrazek Boufahja,, Isabell Gibaud, Arianna Cocchigua, Luca Zalundardo,

Phone in Attendees: Valentina Ferrarrini, Ricardo xxx, Chris Melo, Simon Letellier, Wendy Scharber

Intro/Agenda/IHE Overview

• Review and Week Planning for Request for Clinical Knowledge
  • Overview of work completed to date
  • Need to work on clarifying "Topic of Interest" and "Workflow"
  • Change Figure x.5.3.2 from "requester" to "subscriber"
  • Open Issue : determine the difference between subscriber and requester
  • sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 need more work
  • Need to work on the Risks

• Review and Week Planning for eReferral Workflow
  • Overview of work completed to date
  • Request to make referral more general than to just hospital. Use hospital as one of the use case examples - but allow for other types of referrals to use this profile as well.
  • Need to reach out to John Hilton (IHE Australia) for their review. Does this profile accommodate previous work adequately?
  • Clean up Process Entities to reflect "Process Roles" as new actors

• Review and Week Planning for Nursing Workflow
  • Overview of work completed to date.
  • Pull the data element comparison from CCD into the data element comparison table and include in white paper (see Philip DePalo's work on trasport last year for potential mapping
  • Clean up the diagram with the multiple little triangles - make it simpler with fewer images
  • Add a section on the workflow and how this could be applied as a workflow profile (XDS)
  • Clarify the workflow
  • Add a proposed timeline for review, comment and publication of the whitepaper.

• Review and week planning for Telehealth Monitoring
  • Overview of work completed to date
  • Future discussion needed this week re: the use of the Patient Home in the profile as a content creator. Device send data vs Patient entered data in the PHR being the creator.
  • Need to accomodate alternative paths for interoperability within the process flow for situations where the steps are contained within the same system.

• XDW Tumor Board Workflow Definition Submission
  • Overview of project and work completed to date reviewed
  • Planning Committee determined this project had enough information at the time of the planning meeting in October to be recommended for further work through the technical committee. It was felt there was not a need to reconvene a planning meeting at this time but that the technical committee could continue examining the project for feasibility.
  • Technical committee recognizes the value of this project and the significant work done until now. Committee feels there are issues related to the definition of workflows in general that needs more examination. Team agrees to continue work on the project but does not know at this time if it will be part of the 2012-2013 publication cycle.