PCCTech Minutes 2010 11 18: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Attendees: Laura Heermann, Tone Southerland, Audrey Dickerson, Mike McCoy, Anne Diamond, Charles Rica, | Attendees: Laura Heermann, Tone Southerland, Audrey Dickerson, Mike McCoy, Anne Diamond, Charles Rica, Tom Kuhn, | ||
Call in Attendees: Mary Jungers, Lisa Nelson, | Call in Attendees: Mary Jungers, Lisa Nelson, Jean Millar | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
9:30 – 10:00ET Joint with QRPH re: Clarification on a Trial Implementation Supplement testing issue affecting MCH, LDS and PPVS | 9:30 – 10:00ET Joint with QRPH re: Clarification on a Trial Implementation Supplement testing issue affecting MCH, LDS and PPVS | ||
Issue | Issue: | ||
Given that each CDA document will have only one patient role in the record target, | Given that each CDA document will have only one patient role in the record target, | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Issue: | |||
How do we document which profiles exist and what they do so they can be referenced and not duplicated. | |||
1. Need a template registry (will name is something to indicate to its being specific to IHE - Such as Profile Template Registry... | |||
People agree to this in theory - but no one has been willing to take on the responsibility. | |||
QRPH members (Wendy and Wendy) will take a lead role on this to create requirements and initial prototypes for feedback and review to the Domain Committee Co-chairs. Goal = to have a proposal/plan by the Feb F2F meeting | |||
1.5 Also need a Implementation Guide = Tone will draft this as time allows. | |||
2. Some profiles are of a general topic, but have very specific content that limits the reuse. | |||
Suggestion: The 2nd profile should be created as a more generally applicable template then have a change proposal created to get the initial one to become a "constraint" of the more generally written one. | |||
Revision as of 10:51, 18 November 2010
Attendees: Laura Heermann, Tone Southerland, Audrey Dickerson, Mike McCoy, Anne Diamond, Charles Rica, Tom Kuhn,
Call in Attendees: Mary Jungers, Lisa Nelson, Jean Millar
9:30 – 10:00ET Joint with QRPH re: Clarification on a Trial Implementation Supplement testing issue affecting MCH, LDS and PPVS
Issue:
Given that each CDA document will have only one patient role in the record target,
1. What are the mechanisms for identifying an individual different from the record target (ie a child or a father of the fetus) and indicating that a section of information is associated with a specific individual?
2. What is the xml conformance for specifying an “uber-section” (no examples are included) and how do we handle an uber-section that has sections referencing different people?
3. How do you want to address the need to clean up the way the header elements are documented in the MCH profile?
Next action: Tone and Lisa to work on creating example to solve immediate issue for Connectathon. Then each profile team will need to create a Change Proposal for each of the profiles in question. Michelle Williamson will work with Lory Forquet to address the referencing issues with the MCH issue. Tone and Lisa will address LDS and PPVS.
Issue:
How do we document which profiles exist and what they do so they can be referenced and not duplicated.
1. Need a template registry (will name is something to indicate to its being specific to IHE - Such as Profile Template Registry...
People agree to this in theory - but no one has been willing to take on the responsibility. QRPH members (Wendy and Wendy) will take a lead role on this to create requirements and initial prototypes for feedback and review to the Domain Committee Co-chairs. Goal = to have a proposal/plan by the Feb F2F meeting
1.5 Also need a Implementation Guide = Tone will draft this as time allows.
2. Some profiles are of a general topic, but have very specific content that limits the reuse.
Suggestion: The 2nd profile should be created as a more generally applicable template then have a change proposal created to get the initial one to become a "constraint" of the more generally written one.