Card Tech Minutes 2016.04.05-07: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
: A question [Item 47] was created to document how a patient arrived at an institution. This can be useful for patients who are transferred from facility A to facility B for a procedure, e.g. a VA patient arrives at UW for a cath. Does UW own the data, for registry purposes? The prior release of CRC has dealt with this type of scenario. If a patient has complications, it would be the responsibility of the VA, and not be under the control of UW. It may be helpful to ask the ACC Informatics Task Force the clinical benefits and usefulness of this type of report or information. Follow-up and further discussion may offer insight to the workflow theory, but it would not have the direct impact on the profile at this time. | : A question [Item 47] was created to document how a patient arrived at an institution. This can be useful for patients who are transferred from facility A to facility B for a procedure, e.g. a VA patient arrives at UW for a cath. Does UW own the data, for registry purposes? The prior release of CRC has dealt with this type of scenario. If a patient has complications, it would be the responsibility of the VA, and not be under the control of UW. It may be helpful to ask the ACC Informatics Task Force the clinical benefits and usefulness of this type of report or information. Follow-up and further discussion may offer insight to the workflow theory, but it would not have the direct impact on the profile at this time. | ||
:*Cath 5.0 Update | :*Cath 5.0 Update | ||
: Overview of what has changed from RCS-C to Cath 5.0 release. The bulk of the changes are related to | : Overview of what has changed from RCS-C to Cath 5.0 release. The bulk of the changes are related to: | ||
Harmonization with other registries. | #Harmonization with other registries. | ||
Diag Cath AUC | #Diag Cath AUC | ||
Updates to | #Updates to the revascularization AUC | ||
Added more physicians for PQRS | #Added more physicians for PQRS | ||
We are adding Follow-Up to registries request info at 30 days and 1 year. Some option long term quality of care questionnaires significant for PCI. | #We are adding Follow-Up to registries request info at 30 days and 1 year. Some option long term quality of care questionnaires significant for PCI. | ||
Note: there was no 4.5 due to significant changes to 4.4 to jump up to 5.0. There has been a significant delay in the development of the data dictionary. We are projecting end of July or August for finishing the profile. This may put our participation in Connectathon 2016 at risk. Approximately 9 months after release, the clock would start around the vendors will be required to use 5.0 and version 4.4 will start around July 2017. If we want to participate in the 2016 CTA, sign up starts in October 2016. We may need some trial implementation by August 2016. This would also include finding the time slot from Mary for Public Comment. | ''Note: there was no 4.5 due to significant changes to 4.4 to jump up to 5.0.'' There has been a significant delay in the development of the data dictionary. We are projecting end of July or August for finishing the profile. This may put our participation in Connectathon 2016 at risk. Approximately 9 months after release, the clock would start around the vendors will be required to use 5.0 and version 4.4 will start around July 2017. If we want to participate in the 2016 CTA, sign up starts in October 2016. We may need some trial implementation by August 2016. This would also include finding the time slot from Mary for Public Comment. | ||
: Discussion of Creating a Cardiology Only | : Discussion of Creating a Cardiology Only Connectathon @ NCDR.17 in Washington DC. | ||
: Changes to Cath-PCI: Race comes from the HL7 Standards for Race, which is based on data from | : Changes to Cath-PCI: Race comes from the HL7 Standards for Race, which is based on data from US Census data. | ||
: the field for smoking status. this also tries to harmonize with the ACTION registry. these are not downloadable. | : the field for smoking status. this also tries to harmonize with the ACTION registry. these are not downloadable. | ||
:The AUC field for | :The AUC field for diagnostic imaging is considerably expanded, as well as the Revascularization AUC. There will be a code system number for each of the indications. | ||
: Much more graft information | : Much more graft information ideally using the same list from invasive testing. | ||
: Discharge now includes Cause of Death includes an expanded list of indications | : Discharge now includes Cause of Death includes an expanded list of indications | ||
: Expanded list of physicians, | : Expanded list of physicians, including admitting, attending and discharge. | ||
: | : Follow Up can be optional with recommendations. This is not optional for the Vendor Layer, just the provider entry. | ||
:*Structural Heart, Section Two | :*Structural Heart, Section Two | ||
: | : | ||
Revision as of 13:16, 5 April 2016
- Day One, April 5, 2016
- Structural Heart, Section One
- All of the issues that have come up in the process are documented in the Open Issues list, in reverse chronological order. If we are closing an item, there should be a note that should document the reasons for the change of status. Some of the items listed are external to the scope of these project.
- Are there any changes from CRC that were made to optimize TAVR? We will create a list of options that must be supported within the profile, possibly with a matrix listing.
- A question [Item 47] was created to document how a patient arrived at an institution. This can be useful for patients who are transferred from facility A to facility B for a procedure, e.g. a VA patient arrives at UW for a cath. Does UW own the data, for registry purposes? The prior release of CRC has dealt with this type of scenario. If a patient has complications, it would be the responsibility of the VA, and not be under the control of UW. It may be helpful to ask the ACC Informatics Task Force the clinical benefits and usefulness of this type of report or information. Follow-up and further discussion may offer insight to the workflow theory, but it would not have the direct impact on the profile at this time.
- Cath 5.0 Update
- Overview of what has changed from RCS-C to Cath 5.0 release. The bulk of the changes are related to:
- Harmonization with other registries.
- Diag Cath AUC
- Updates to the revascularization AUC
- Added more physicians for PQRS
- We are adding Follow-Up to registries request info at 30 days and 1 year. Some option long term quality of care questionnaires significant for PCI.
Note: there was no 4.5 due to significant changes to 4.4 to jump up to 5.0. There has been a significant delay in the development of the data dictionary. We are projecting end of July or August for finishing the profile. This may put our participation in Connectathon 2016 at risk. Approximately 9 months after release, the clock would start around the vendors will be required to use 5.0 and version 4.4 will start around July 2017. If we want to participate in the 2016 CTA, sign up starts in October 2016. We may need some trial implementation by August 2016. This would also include finding the time slot from Mary for Public Comment.
- Discussion of Creating a Cardiology Only Connectathon @ NCDR.17 in Washington DC.
- Changes to Cath-PCI: Race comes from the HL7 Standards for Race, which is based on data from US Census data.
- the field for smoking status. this also tries to harmonize with the ACTION registry. these are not downloadable.
- The AUC field for diagnostic imaging is considerably expanded, as well as the Revascularization AUC. There will be a code system number for each of the indications.
- Much more graft information ideally using the same list from invasive testing.
- Discharge now includes Cause of Death includes an expanded list of indications
- Expanded list of physicians, including admitting, attending and discharge.
- Follow Up can be optional with recommendations. This is not optional for the Vendor Layer, just the provider entry.
- Structural Heart, Section Two