PCCPlan Minutes 2012 10 30: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Tsoutherland (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Tsoutherland (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
==IC CCDA Harmonization== | ==IC CCDA Harmonization== | ||
'''Presenter: Alean Kirnak''' | '''Presenter: Alean Kirnak''' | ||
* | |||
==C-CDA Harmonization== | |||
* concerns: | |||
** C-CDA is US-specific | |||
*** Complete gap analysis showing US specific aspects of C-CCDA | |||
*** Change PCC templates such that they harmonize w/C-CDA but exclude US specific aspects as mentioned above | |||
** XDS-MS, XPHR, EDR, IC (voted in, but not part of the TF yet) are all Final Text | |||
** Problems and Allergies templates are biggest challenge - breaking changes were made to these templates in C-CDA | |||
** Template Versioning | |||
*** Currently PCC just creates new templateIds, not a new version of existing template | |||
*** use root and extension | |||
** PCC should focus on schema and rule changes - not changing templateIds | |||
** Both short and long term interests - how do we fix it now so that PCC is not competing with C-CDA and how do we handle for new templates going forward | |||
** Possible Solutions: | |||
*** 1.Introduce new profiles that deprecate existing profiles (e.g. XDS.b over XDS.a) | |||
*** 2.Write CPs | |||
* Areas of Work: | |||
** 1.Gap Analysis of US Specifics | |||
** 2.Template Versioning | |||
Revision as of 13:59, 30 October 2012
Referral Matching
Presenter: George Cole
- 4 Basic Issues (Assumption that we are using XD*):
- 1. Referring system doing the referral knows how to format and where to include a "ReferralId"
- 2. Works for single or multiple submission sets
- 3. Receiving system has to know how to handle, turn around the referral
- using structured or unstructured document, etc
- 4. Referring system needs to know whether or not it will receive a response, and which response it is receiving
- Use XDS Folders, metadata content
- Use certain pieces of CDAR2 and/or CCDA
- Q: Isn't this XDW?
- Could be beneficially used in XDW, but this is not about tracking tasks across enterprise, but instead narrowly focusing down on a referral use case
- Look at Perinatal Workflow and ensure alignment
- Keith:
- Agree that material is there, and this will be helpful to explain how to use it.
- Will be challenges when dealing with unstructured documents
- George: use XD* metadata to help deal with this
- Keith: There is no searching capability within XDS metadata
- Should schedule joint time with ITI during Dec meeting
- John D:
- Is this a Transition of Care XDW component?
- It could become that, a component of XDW
- Is selection of the referral target out of scope, or pre-condition?
- yes, either approach. not trying to profile this.
- Is this a Transition of Care XDW component?
- Wendy S:
- Are we restricting the idea to only using XDS?
- Will use XDS, XDM, XDR - XD*
- Can this be used outside of XD*?
- the piece of this that profiles CDA content could be used outside of XD*
- Are we restricting the idea to only using XDS?
- Keith:
- Is unstructured document going to be used to request a referral?
- we could say unstructured document is off the table...otherwise will be challenges tracking
- Is unstructured document going to be used to request a referral?
- Tone - Need to ensure we don't let this profile expand outside of original scope
Order Matching
Presenter: Emma Jones
- Can be meds, or any type of order such as a "wound assessment"
- One of the challenges may be that the communication is about a particular order, but not necessarily a fullfillment of a given order
- Order for referral vs diagnostic study is the same
- committee agrees to combine this with referral matching, to be approached as one profile
Care Management Revision
Presenter: Keith Boone
- Coordinate w/HL7 Patient Care
- Need to consider other related profiles (RCG, RCK, etc)
- Perhaps this is a harmonization or white paper effort
- Concerns w/overlap or competition with current US initiatives (S&I Framework)
Diagnostic Study Request
Presenter: Vincent van Pelt
- Is this work already addressed elsewhere in IHE?
- Perhaps eReferral Workflow
- Scheduling piece is not addressed here..concerns with trying to tackle that
- Scheduled component is very lightweight here
- Other Workflow profiles being put forward may have overlap here - XDW-EHDI in particular
- Can this be broadened to "Order request"?
- Yes, ok so what are the challenges with this approach
- Consider the concepts presented in State Chart XML http://www.w3.org/TR/scxml/
- Types of orders that this can also address:
- Standing/Repeating
- Need to ensure we stay focused on the clinical aspects of this, and not get into Payer models, etc.
- No stakeholders as of yet
- Ideas for Profile rename
- Plan of Care Orders
- Order, Procedure Order
- Test Order
- Ideas for Profile rename
IC CCDA Harmonization
Presenter: Alean Kirnak
C-CDA Harmonization
- concerns:
- C-CDA is US-specific
- Complete gap analysis showing US specific aspects of C-CCDA
- Change PCC templates such that they harmonize w/C-CDA but exclude US specific aspects as mentioned above
- XDS-MS, XPHR, EDR, IC (voted in, but not part of the TF yet) are all Final Text
- Problems and Allergies templates are biggest challenge - breaking changes were made to these templates in C-CDA
- Template Versioning
- Currently PCC just creates new templateIds, not a new version of existing template
- use root and extension
- PCC should focus on schema and rule changes - not changing templateIds
- Both short and long term interests - how do we fix it now so that PCC is not competing with C-CDA and how do we handle for new templates going forward
- C-CDA is US-specific
- Possible Solutions:
- 1.Introduce new profiles that deprecate existing profiles (e.g. XDS.b over XDS.a)
- 2.Write CPs
- Possible Solutions:
- Areas of Work:
- 1.Gap Analysis of US Specifics
- 2.Template Versioning