Difference between revisions of "October 01 & 08, 2008 - QRPH Planning prior to Face-to-Face meeting"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 45: Line 45:
  
 
*[ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr7-2009-2010/Planning_Cmte/Brief%20Profile%20Proposals/IHE_WP_pseudonymisation_Proposal_(Brief).doc Pseudonimysation White Paper]
 
*[ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr7-2009-2010/Planning_Cmte/Brief%20Profile%20Proposals/IHE_WP_pseudonymisation_Proposal_(Brief).doc Pseudonimysation White Paper]
** Please see standard ISO TS 25237 - Health informatics - Pseudonymisation
+
** Please see standard ISO TS 25237 - Health informatics - Pseudonymisation === ''links to be added.''
 
** Also see Supplement 55 DICOM.
 
** Also see Supplement 55 DICOM.
  

Revision as of 08:00, 10 October 2008

Agenda

1) Domain Milestones

2) Call for nomination - QRPH Planning Committee second co-chair

3) Discussion of the new proposals forwarded to ITI Planning - infrastructure needed for QRPH

  • Pseudonimysation White Paper - to be coordinated with the two other German profile proposals present on the ftp site concerning the same subject

3) Call for new profiles QRPH for the next cycle

4) Domain Roadmap

5) Action items before the next call


Persons Present October 01, 2008:

  • Ana ESTELRICH (GIP-DMP)
  • Floyd EISENBERG (SIEMENS MEDICAL)
  • Jason COLQUITT (GREENWAY MEDICAL)
  • Vassil PEYTCHEV (EPIC)
  • John Moerhke (GE MEDICAL)
  • Didi DAVIS (HIMSS)
  • Chris CARR (RSNA)
  • Gary WALKER (CDISC)
  • Penelope SOLIS (AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION)
  • Charles RICA (GIP-DMP)
  • LaVerne PALMER (HIMSS)
  • Joan McMILLEN (RSNA)
  • X
  • X
  • X*

NOTE: List to be updated following the roll call to be forwarded by LaVerne.

MINUTES

1) The Domain Milestone Dates need to be changed by the technical committee co-chairs - the dates for publication of any items for public comment need to be changed not to coincide with other domains, so that the reviewers will have the time to read the profiles and not be submerged by the work.

2) A call for nomination for the second QRPH Planning Committee co-chair was put out. There is a potential candidate, waiting for approval from their organization.

3) Two proposals were submitted to the ITI Planning committee on behalf of the QRPH committee:

  • Pseudonimysation White Paper
    • Please see standard ISO TS 25237 - Health informatics - Pseudonymisation === links to be added.
    • Also see Supplement 55 DICOM.

The profile and the white paper are to be voted by the ITI Planning Committee in Paris, Oct 16-17, 2008. Recorded presentations of this work is available on ITI Planning Committee 2008/09 Webinars.

Possible profiles for IHE QRPH domain were discussed. Following the work of the previous cycle, namely:

the following areas were identified:

  • Value Set Registry
    • A Registry is needed for the ITI Sharing Value Sets Proposal. This is an infrastructure proposal and it is not part of the QRPH domain. A white paper can be written indicating the need as pertaining to the SVS proposal. There are other needs as well. This point was mentioned by Floyd E.
  • Value Set Content
    • Need further details.
  • Quality Measure
  • Care Management
  • Chronic Disease Management
    • CDMR
    • needs to be further scoped, aligned with Anna Orlova's group.
  • Clinical Research
  • Identifying patient role in clinical trial
  • Parameter-based queries
  • PNP (Perinatality, Neonatology and Pediatrics) Aggregated queries for Public Health
    • Public Health in France requires certain data from PCP at 3 specific periods in child's early life.
    • Proposal to follow
    • HITSP will work on new-born related study
    • Possible combination with Anna Orlova
    • HITSP will take three quality measures identify by a format identified in an EHR - take the white paper w Value Sets identify as three measures, reporting out. Similiar to PQED. HITSP deliverable. Get data and report in QRDA. This has to be updated. AMA has published the first attempt at measure definition. A brief proposal is needed.

The committee needs to further discuss them and decide if they can be classfied as:

  • profiles
  • white papers
  • part of the roadmap and the orientations

Please take a look at the brief proposal template for new work on the ftp site at brief proposal template.