Card Tech Minutes 2016.01.20: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:* ''Document Review'' - Nick, Chris, and Antje are reviewing the document created by Elena and Glauco regarding XDS. They will return edits to Arsenal IT in the next few weeks.There are some changes that need to be made due to other contexts of the data, e.g. radiology vs. cardiology transactions. | :* ''Document Review'' - Nick, Chris, and Antje are reviewing the document created by Elena and Glauco regarding XDS. They will return edits to Arsenal IT in the next few weeks.There are some changes that need to be made due to other contexts of the data, e.g. radiology vs. cardiology transactions. | ||
:* ''Actor Groupings'' - Some are listed as human participants, others seem to be automated systems. This may need to be clarified when use cases are developed to ensure. For instance, in section X.4.1.4 [line 646] the requestor is a Cardiologist, in IHE parlance, a requestor may be a query from an EHR. | :* ''Actor Groupings'' - Some are listed as human participants, others seem to be automated systems. This may need to be clarified when use cases are developed to ensure. For instance, in section X.4.1.4 [line 646] the requestor is a Cardiologist, in IHE parlance, a requestor may be a query from an EHR. | ||
:* ''Workflow''- Approximately six tasks are involved: Heart Team [HT] Request Task, HT Lead Task, HT Involvement, HT Preparation, HT Perform, and Finalization. There is some ambiguity around the term "Requestor", and there might need to be further clarification between the human reading the report and the process of the content creator who develops the report. It may be helpful to define the different levels of use cases. For example, system level workflows which could describe the technical effforts and how they coudl support the clinical usage. The further review of use cases by cardiologists may be the best way to ensure that the underlying systems support techncial processes. | :* ''Workflow'' - Approximately six tasks are involved: Heart Team [HT] Request Task, HT Lead Task, HT Involvement, HT Preparation, HT Perform, and Finalization. There is some ambiguity around the term "Requestor", and there might need to be further clarification between the human reading the report and the process of the content creator who develops the report. It may be helpful to define the different levels of use cases. For example, system level workflows which could describe the technical effforts and how they coudl support the clinical usage. The further review of use cases by cardiologists may be the best way to ensure that the underlying systems support techncial processes. | ||
:* ''Workflow Review'' - The | :* ''Workflow Chart Review'' - The graphic for the HT which includes the decision points for clinicians and other actors. This also includes descriptions of the documents as well as each step in the process. Nick and Chris will also review it off-line and provide further comments. It was recommended for Aresenal IT to apply the terminiology changes discused, then scheduling another session to review those changes. Possibly next week. | ||
Latest revision as of 13:48, 20 January 2016
- XDS
- Document Review - Nick, Chris, and Antje are reviewing the document created by Elena and Glauco regarding XDS. They will return edits to Arsenal IT in the next few weeks.There are some changes that need to be made due to other contexts of the data, e.g. radiology vs. cardiology transactions.
- Actor Groupings - Some are listed as human participants, others seem to be automated systems. This may need to be clarified when use cases are developed to ensure. For instance, in section X.4.1.4 [line 646] the requestor is a Cardiologist, in IHE parlance, a requestor may be a query from an EHR.
- Workflow - Approximately six tasks are involved: Heart Team [HT] Request Task, HT Lead Task, HT Involvement, HT Preparation, HT Perform, and Finalization. There is some ambiguity around the term "Requestor", and there might need to be further clarification between the human reading the report and the process of the content creator who develops the report. It may be helpful to define the different levels of use cases. For example, system level workflows which could describe the technical effforts and how they coudl support the clinical usage. The further review of use cases by cardiologists may be the best way to ensure that the underlying systems support techncial processes.
- Workflow Chart Review - The graphic for the HT which includes the decision points for clinicians and other actors. This also includes descriptions of the documents as well as each step in the process. Nick and Chris will also review it off-line and provide further comments. It was recommended for Aresenal IT to apply the terminiology changes discused, then scheduling another session to review those changes. Possibly next week.