PCC PC ProposalWebinar 2012-10-19
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- Occupational Health (Lisa Nelson)
- This is not a new profile proposal, but is a rework of existing templates such that profiles that use those templates
- Is the sourcing/source of information part of this? Can it be tracked back to the source of information?
- Answer: Vision is for it to work either way
- I understand NIOSH will be a consumer of this information - are there other potential consumers?
- Answer: Yes, NIOSH is an interested consumer of this information. OSHA and others are also interested in this information
- Why is this not coming in as a Change Proposal?
- Answer: Because this might overlap with other harmonization type work. CP avenue can certainly be utilized if that is what the committee feels is the best approach.
- How many templates are affected?
- Answer: one - Coded Social History
- What about the international perspective? How do you manage coding systems?
- Answer: carefully approaching this perspective, will utilize IHE regional extensions as needed.
- Why is this not a profile?
- Answer: goal is to affect only at the template level
- Will the information collected be clinically relevant?
- Answer(s): Yes, although others have some concerns; will continue to explore
- EHCP Evolution (Lisa Nelson)
- No Discussion/questions
- EHDI Workflow (Lisa Nelson)
- Does this profile really belong in PCC?
- Answer: yes, because that is where the current technical expertise lies, although it likely will not live in the PCC TF, but instead in the QRPH TF
- It could fit in PCC when considering the provider workflow pieces that are in this of this proposal
- Answer: agree
- What is pulsoxymetry (sp?) doing as part of an EHCP profile?
- Answer: mistake/typo
- Concerns in PCC around workload - let's consider assigning a resource from PCC to work with QRPH on this
- Does this profile really belong in PCC?
- Care Management Revision (Keith Boone)
- Would the existing profile be sunsetted and this replace it?
- Answer: yes
- Seems like a workflow profile for Care Management - why is it not presented as a workflow profile?
- not a matter of one provider saying to another "here's the plan" - this is more about configuring health IT systems to create connection.
- What are the size estimates?
- Answer: Medium to Large
- Would the existing profile be sunsetted and this replace it?
- DSR
- There are profiles in other domains - lab, card, rad (Scehduled Workflow profile), etc - that address these types of use cases - need to coordinate with these other domains if this is something we take on.
- Size seems to be large, due to coordination
- Risk: duplication of existing work .. but working with other domains should help to stem that
- perhaps an extension of referral workflow profile we recently completed
- Is there a value-add in having a generic process for workflow profiles?
- Potentially a lot of work around creating a generic profile/process - perhaps we are not ready for this yet