Card Tech Minutes 2017.01.11: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Minutes== | ==Minutes== | ||
'''Review NCDR EP Suite ICD 2.2 registry comparison with EPRC-IE profile - Dan Murphy''' | '''Review NCDR EP Suite ICD 2.2 registry comparison with EPRC-IE profile - Dan Murphy''' | ||
: Dan compared RCS-EP to look at what matches EPRC-IE [was done with ver 2.1], which focuses on the procedure vs. the whole admission. He then looked more closely at each element as much as he could. There are a fair amount of changes between 50% of fields from 2.1 to 2.2 that went away, or new fields that were introduced. Items like cardiomyopathy split into two fields. The larger question is what can we do with these sorts of versioning changes? That also gets into what sort of updates will be needed for the procedure note to be suitable for registry submission? Reusing what's created during the procedure note, e.g. structured reporting, may be the solution. Perhaps the reconciliation takes place outside of the value sets, if the registry requires fewer points of data than a typical procedure notes. There are many ACC-specific value codes that are unique to this situation. For example they use terms like ''a month'' rather that discrete time stamps. The clinicians want the raw data. The other risk is for patients who may be poor historians. For example, remembering an exact year a specific intervention occurred. An another item to consider is that we may be adding items that are not being collected by the NCDR for the next several years. As we discuss these further, the procedure note and the value set harmonization may be out of scope for this profile. Our objective is to collect the relevant data in the procedure note. There are limits for data which may not be of interest to patients. | : Dan compared RCS-EP to look at what matches EPRC-IE [was done with ver 2.1], which focuses on the procedure vs. the whole admission. He then looked more closely at each element as much as he could. There are a fair amount of changes between 50% of fields from 2.1 to 2.2 that went away, or new fields that were introduced. Items like cardiomyopathy split into two fields. The larger question is what can we do with these sorts of versioning changes? That also gets into what sort of updates will be needed for the procedure note to be suitable for registry submission? Reusing what's created during the procedure note, e.g. structured reporting, may be the solution. Perhaps the reconciliation takes place outside of the value sets, if the registry requires fewer points of data than a typical procedure notes. There are many ACC-specific value codes that are unique to this situation. For example they use terms like ''a month'' rather that discrete time stamps. The clinicians want the raw data. The other risk is for patients who may be poor historians. For example, remembering an exact year a specific intervention occurred. An another item to consider is that we may be adding items that are not being collected by the NCDR for the next several years. As we discuss these further, the procedure note and the value set harmonization may be out of scope for this profile. Our objective is to collect the relevant data in the procedure note. There are limits for data which may not be of interest to patients. | ||
:'''Update on Art-Decor tooling''' | :'''Update on Art-Decor tooling''' | ||
Revision as of 11:52, 11 January 2017
Attendees
- Chris Melo, Philips - co chair
- Nick Gawrit, Heartbase - co chair
- Paul Dow, ACC - secretary
- Dan Murphy, Epic
- Antje Schroeder, Healthineers
- Charles Thomas, University of Washington
- Rebecca Baker, ACC
Minutes
Review NCDR EP Suite ICD 2.2 registry comparison with EPRC-IE profile - Dan Murphy
- Dan compared RCS-EP to look at what matches EPRC-IE [was done with ver 2.1], which focuses on the procedure vs. the whole admission. He then looked more closely at each element as much as he could. There are a fair amount of changes between 50% of fields from 2.1 to 2.2 that went away, or new fields that were introduced. Items like cardiomyopathy split into two fields. The larger question is what can we do with these sorts of versioning changes? That also gets into what sort of updates will be needed for the procedure note to be suitable for registry submission? Reusing what's created during the procedure note, e.g. structured reporting, may be the solution. Perhaps the reconciliation takes place outside of the value sets, if the registry requires fewer points of data than a typical procedure notes. There are many ACC-specific value codes that are unique to this situation. For example they use terms like a month rather that discrete time stamps. The clinicians want the raw data. The other risk is for patients who may be poor historians. For example, remembering an exact year a specific intervention occurred. An another item to consider is that we may be adding items that are not being collected by the NCDR for the next several years. As we discuss these further, the procedure note and the value set harmonization may be out of scope for this profile. Our objective is to collect the relevant data in the procedure note. There are limits for data which may not be of interest to patients.
- Update on Art-Decor tooling
- Chris Melo has contacted Eric Poisseau regarding access to the Art Decor servers. So far, he has had no response. Chris will be at an HL7 meeting next week and will follow up.
Update on PCC PMDT profile
- We're heard from abary brown. other nin put by 1//18 is
- Deferred Until Next Meeting
- Review Final Text ACC CathPCI Procedure Note Document versus CRC profile - Nick Gawrit