PCC PC ProposalWebinar 2012-10-19: Difference between revisions

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tsoutherland (talk | contribs)
Created page with "* 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/so..."
 
Tsoutherland (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 16: Line 16:
*** Answer(s): Yes, although others have  some concerns; will continue to explore
*** Answer(s): Yes, although others have  some concerns; will continue to explore


* EHCP Evolution
** No Discussion/questions


* EHDI Workflow
* EHDI Workflow
** 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
* Care Management Revision
** 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.
* DSR
**

Revision as of 11:11, 19 October 2012

  • 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
    • No Discussion/questions
  • EHDI Workflow
    • 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



  • Care Management Revision
    • 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.


  • DSR