Pharm Plan Agenda 2014.10.29: Difference between revisions

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 30: Line 30:




* PADV Issue: Deep analysis of code "CHANGE" revealed that it actually means "CHANGE + OK" (= implies the OK too). Related to that, the state "OK" actually means "(Unchanged) OK"
* PADV issue: Deep analysis of code "CHANGE" revealed that it actually means "CHANGE + OK" (= implies the OK too). Related to that, the state "OK" actually means "(Unchanged) OK"
:* Question: Do we need a simple "CHANGE" which does not also imply the OK? Not needed for A, SA and CH -> at the moment it is an academic discussion
:* Question: Do we need a simple "CHANGE" which does not also imply the OK? Not needed for A, SA and CH -> at the moment it is an academic discussion
* DIS issue: The Dispenser also needs Profession and Specialty
:* Proposal: Exchange <performer> by <author> for the Dispenser. Change <author> by a second <author> for a possible prescriber of the underlying prescription
* PADV issue: Requirement of CH: Providing comments to PRE or DIS items (e.g. The patient has problems swallowing the pill because it's too big).
:* Possible solution: Extend PADV by a new code "COMMENT", which has no effect on the workflow, but just provides commenting information, e.g. as concern
* PRE issue: Precondition is often used to describe dosage related information (e.g. "Take on demand")
:* Question: Shall it be moved under "Dosage instructions"?


* PADV, PML issue: The issue appears only, when a PRE entry is referenced in a PADV or embedded in a PML + this entry contains an internal reference in the "Reason" element (e.g. to a diagnosis expressed in an Active Problems section)
* PADV, PML issue: The issue appears only, when a PRE entry is referenced in a PADV or embedded in a PML + this entry contains an internal reference in the "Reason" element (e.g. to a diagnosis expressed in an Active Problems section)
:* Current solution in PADV: The section referenced is not included and instructions are given how to break the internal reference
:* Current solution in PADV: The section referenced is not included and instructions are given how to break the internal reference
:* Proposed solution: CP on PADV and PML to allow 0..* additional sections to be added in order not to break the internal references. Those section do NOT belong to the PADV/PML document itself, but are just inserted to fulfill the internal reference
:* Proposed solution: CP on PADV and PML to allow 0..* additional sections to be added in order not to break the internal references. Those section do NOT belong to the PADV/PML document itself, but are just inserted to fulfill the internal reference




Revision as of 01:06, 27 October 2014

09:00 - 09:15 Welcome

  • Participants
  • Review and Approve Agenda


09:15 - 10:45 Medication Treatment

  • Proposal
  • Vision of the work ahead (Jürgen, Stephane)
  • Discussion
  • Formal approval of the new work-item proposal
  • Defining next steps


10:45 - 11:00 Break

11:00 - 12:30 Pharmacy Administration

  • Current work:
  • Wrapping up work done so far, open issues and how to continue(Jürgen)
  • Discussion
  • Defining next steps


12:30 - 13:30 Lunch

13:30 - 14:00 Several Community Pharmacy related issues

  • PADV issue: Deep analysis of code "CHANGE" revealed that it actually means "CHANGE + OK" (= implies the OK too). Related to that, the state "OK" actually means "(Unchanged) OK"
  • Question: Do we need a simple "CHANGE" which does not also imply the OK? Not needed for A, SA and CH -> at the moment it is an academic discussion
  • DIS issue: The Dispenser also needs Profession and Specialty
  • Proposal: Exchange <performer> by <author> for the Dispenser. Change <author> by a second <author> for a possible prescriber of the underlying prescription
  • PADV issue: Requirement of CH: Providing comments to PRE or DIS items (e.g. The patient has problems swallowing the pill because it's too big).
  • Possible solution: Extend PADV by a new code "COMMENT", which has no effect on the workflow, but just provides commenting information, e.g. as concern
  • PRE issue: Precondition is often used to describe dosage related information (e.g. "Take on demand")
  • Question: Shall it be moved under "Dosage instructions"?
  • PADV, PML issue: The issue appears only, when a PRE entry is referenced in a PADV or embedded in a PML + this entry contains an internal reference in the "Reason" element (e.g. to a diagnosis expressed in an Active Problems section)
  • Current solution in PADV: The section referenced is not included and instructions are given how to break the internal reference
  • Proposed solution: CP on PADV and PML to allow 0..* additional sections to be added in order not to break the internal references. Those section do NOT belong to the PADV/PML document itself, but are just inserted to fulfill the internal reference


14:00 - 15:15 ISO liaison

  • Report on ISO meeting in Berlin (Jürgen)
  • Commenting on ISO/DIS 17523 "Requirements for electronic prescriptions"
  • ISO DTS 19293 "Requirements for the record of Dispense Medicinal Products"
  • Discussion
  • Defining next steps
  • ISO/DTS 17251, "Business requirements for the exchange of structured dose instructions for medicinal products"
  • Discussion
  • Defining next steps


15:15 - 15:30 Break

15:30 - 16:30 Hospital-Community Use Cases Whitepaper

  • Discussion
  • Can it be published? Open issues?
  • Defining next steps


16:30 - 17:00 Schedule

  • Current version:
  • Open issues:
  • Status of IHE Joint meeting with ITI, PCC and QRPH: 24-25 February 2015, ASIP Santé Offices, Paris, France (Jürgen)
  • Planning of dedicated technicel TCons to work-items (work-item leaders)


17:00 Adjourn

Pharmacy Planning Committee

Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Pharm_Plan_Agenda_2014.10.29&oldid=80959"