PCCTech Minutes 2012 12 04

Attendees: Laura Heermann Langford, Laura Bright, Emma Jones, George Cole, Anne Diamond, Lisa Nelson, Denise Downing, Tone Southerand, Keith Boone, Charles Rica, Thom Kuhn, Jon Farmer, Eric Larsen

Call in Attendees: Vincent Van Pelt, Robert Breas, Sri Bharadwaj, Chris Melo,

EHDI Workflow

• presented by Lisa Nelson
• concern expressed of the significant size of this workflow and the complexity of its dependency and need to coordinate with another profile being developed

BSR Workflow Definition

• Vincent van Pelt
• Scope clarified to have the profile give a generic way of managing and archiving all basic diagnostic and screening studies.
• The unique aspects of this profile that differentiates referral manager is the reporting that happens at the end. Referring a patient is different in that the expectation of what is received back after the patient is seen is different.
• Recommendation made for this project to start with eReferral and determine the similarities and differences. The work for this profile would then be determined if it is to be change proposal type work for eReferral or a new profile write.
• Quick review of eReferral indicates 3 tasks in eReferral but the inputs and outputs are almost the same as what is being proposed for Basic Study Request.
• The name "eReferral" would also be concerning as it may not always reflect the needs of the Basic Study Request.
• Recommended to also keep cross enterprise workflow in mind.

Care Plan

• Denise Downing, Emma Jones, Laura Heermann Langford, Jon Farmer
  • Change the minimalist version to have syntactical, semantic and vocabulary interoperability.
  • Concern expressed with the standards not being completely defined before undertaking this as a profile. Should this be a whitepaper instead?
  • Concern expressed that a white paper does not meet the needs of the industry. The industry would benefit from IHE undertaking a profile development and contributing to the development of the standard(s).

CCDA Harmonization (including IC work)

• Keith Boone
  • with the update/harmonization by several groups to the Consolidated CDA we at PCC need to review our current use of CDA and determine if there are changes needed.
  • Technical Framework has been added to model driven health tools.
  • if we put profile in model driven health tools could gain validation tools, make template driven development easier. Could assist with template interchange (along with HL7 tools).
  • With the review the goals would be:

1) we have the data in our technical tool (technical framework), 2) Figure out to to manage/layer vocabulary constraints to national extensions, 3) bring a layer of abstraction (concept domain) to the value sets. and could create national extensions for the value sets.

• • • • Example: document specification:
        • shall use a template who root = 1.2.3
        • old

      <templateId root="1.2.3" extension=""/>

• • • • • new

     <templateId root="1.2.3" extension="v2"/>

• • The body of the work from this effort would result in a new profile. We would need both versions (old and new to exist in parallel for a period of time)
  • Two key places in the concern/act that are known issues. Could also find issues in guarantor...
  • 3 Buckets work
    • change the templates
    • get them into the correct registry tools
    • document specifications (constraint and conflicts)
    • Would need to connect with ITI and have a discussion with them regarding our intent on what we are planning doing here. Unstructured document would be affected. We could choose to not address unstructured document in the first year. Would also affect and QRPH and Lab folks and how this could affect their Technical Framework.

Order and Referral Matching

• George Cole