Difference between revisions of "PCC TC Face to Face May 4-8, 2020 Minutes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
** Motion to add an open issue: 2 abstention, no against, 6 actives votes, motion is accepted | ** Motion to add an open issue: 2 abstention, no against, 6 actives votes, motion is accepted | ||
* 6.3.1.D.4 - Data Elements : a table with lot of confusion | * 6.3.1.D.4 - Data Elements : a table with lot of confusion | ||
− | ** Motion to put the mapping at the element level: no discussion, 2 abstain, motion is accepted | + | ** Motion to put the mapping at the element level: no discussion, 2 abstain, motion is accepted |
+ | '''Additional Discussion''' | ||
+ | IPS | ||
+ | *Public Comment | ||
+ | **All comments are available on IPS Google Doc | ||
+ | Motion - | ||
+ | John Donnelly move to approve typos pending udates applied for publication. | ||
+ | Lori foruquest second | ||
+ | No further discussion | ||
+ | abstain - 3 | ||
+ | Against - 0 | ||
+ | For - 6 | ||
+ | *143 comments for discussion | ||
+ | *Candidates for discussion | ||
+ | **High Priority items | ||
+ | '''IPS Document OID''' | ||
+ | *Suggesiton to use the HL7 IPS document template with versionining as extension | ||
+ | *This is a collaborative initiative between HL7 and IHE. | ||
+ | *Giorgio - We need to have one main gola of avaoiding two diffrent templates. We need to assure there are no divergence and have tight coupling. | ||
+ | *John Donnelly agrees we need to honor the collaborative option. | ||
+ | *Added an IPS option | ||
+ | *Suggestion to add an open issue that the intent is to add an extension for the template.Should this be done with versioning or with an extension? | ||
+ | *John Moerke - in the case of C-CDA, IHE has not re-written the specification. When C-CDA is desired, it is used. They have even defined the FormatCode --> That is an example of a joint-work-item... as it created ONE specification jointly owned/authored/managed by both IHE and HL7.and in the case of C-CDA there are very well written, tested, and respected tests of C-CDA in the IHE space. | ||
+ | *IPS is an STU in HL7 7 could be consider an evolving template. Need to clarify the governance before we can determine the versioning. Need to do this to determine what is the best option. | ||
+ | *Tone - why would we need a single template ID? Why do we not have an IHE template ID? Ahy are we using HL7 template ID and not using IHE template ID? WHy can we not use 2 different template ID. | ||
+ | Motion - will document as an open issue and keep the same template ID | ||
+ | *Tone second | ||
+ | *No further discussion | ||
+ | *Abstain - 2 | ||
+ | *Against - 0 | ||
+ | *For - 6 | ||
− | + | '''Table 6.3.1.D.4-1''' | |
+ | *CED data element mapped to the IPS CDA | ||
+ | *Lori - Andrea is to do the mapping at element level | ||
+ | *Second - John Donnelly | ||
+ | *Abstain - 0 | ||
+ | *Against - 0 | ||
+ | *For - 6 | ||
==May 6, 2020 Virtual Meeting Day 3== | ==May 6, 2020 Virtual Meeting Day 3== |
Revision as of 14:07, 5 May 2020
May 5, 2020 Virtual Meeting Day 2
Attendees:
- On phone
- Andrea Fourquet
- L Fourquet
- Laura Bright
- Chris Melo, Philips
- Steve Moore
- John Moehrke, By Light
- Genny Luensman
- John Donnelly
- Steve Kay
- Giorgio Cangioli
- Tone Southerland (OneRecord)
- Michael Clifton, Epic
- Emma Jones, Allscripts
- Thierry Dart, ANS
PCS - Paramedicine Care Summary (Andrea Fourquet)
- Still need to work on PCS (align on IPS ?)
- Group of countries interested: Switzerland, Finland
- Some sections come from CCD (Payer sections)
Additional Discussion
- Change proposals to update PCS with some of the changes applied to IPS
- Switzerland is implementing PCS and would like to align it to IHE as a point of reference.
- Some elements need to align across borders - change reference from EMS 1 report to inherit from IPS
- IHE need to get the medical summary aligned
- Andrea reached out to Zoll. They continue to be supportive. Attempting to get a larger reach out to existing EMS vendors.
- Analysis on the IPS element - not encounter based but more summary
- Suggestion from John M - might be useful to include in the supplement an Open Issue to remind us about the need to align as needed to X, Y, and Z known regions that are doing that evaluation work.
- Playing around with the cardiac procedure note into the encounter to call out Cardiac issues -
- might be too detailed
- Question for this piece of the encounter is for the procedures
- procedures, interventions and active problems are things that occur in the encounter
- taking what IPS have and restructuring it to meet the PCS use case.
- review of slicing - when to slice Vs when to add a second slice.
- How does Zoll organize the stuff they do today.
- Discussion about how to deal with medications
- need to decide what to do about medication administered and historical meds
- Will the same approach be taken with procedures?
- Vital signs and Physical exam mappings.
IPS - International Patient Summary (public comments, Andrea Fourquet)
- Resolving public comments
- Typos:
- Motion to approve the typos
- No discussion, 3 abstains, no against, 6 actives votes
- The motion passes
- PCC starts discussion by the highest priorities (for comments)
- 6.3.1.D.2 - Parent template and OID of the document
- Shall we use the same OID of HL7 document ?
- Ok to keep the same parent ID with versioning
- Add open issue: we are still working on the collaborative approach with the extension of the template. Further harmonization to align HL7 and IHE is still under consideration
- The PCC agree that we need to add a versioning of the document as an extension (in a templateId element)
- Motion to add an open issue: 2 abstention, no against, 6 actives votes, motion is accepted
- 6.3.1.D.4 - Data Elements : a table with lot of confusion
- Motion to put the mapping at the element level: no discussion, 2 abstain, motion is accepted
Additional Discussion IPS
- Public Comment
- All comments are available on IPS Google Doc
Motion - John Donnelly move to approve typos pending udates applied for publication. Lori foruquest second No further discussion abstain - 3 Against - 0 For - 6
- 143 comments for discussion
- Candidates for discussion
- High Priority items
IPS Document OID
- Suggesiton to use the HL7 IPS document template with versionining as extension
- This is a collaborative initiative between HL7 and IHE.
- Giorgio - We need to have one main gola of avaoiding two diffrent templates. We need to assure there are no divergence and have tight coupling.
- John Donnelly agrees we need to honor the collaborative option.
- Added an IPS option
- Suggestion to add an open issue that the intent is to add an extension for the template.Should this be done with versioning or with an extension?
- John Moerke - in the case of C-CDA, IHE has not re-written the specification. When C-CDA is desired, it is used. They have even defined the FormatCode --> That is an example of a joint-work-item... as it created ONE specification jointly owned/authored/managed by both IHE and HL7.and in the case of C-CDA there are very well written, tested, and respected tests of C-CDA in the IHE space.
- IPS is an STU in HL7 7 could be consider an evolving template. Need to clarify the governance before we can determine the versioning. Need to do this to determine what is the best option.
- Tone - why would we need a single template ID? Why do we not have an IHE template ID? Ahy are we using HL7 template ID and not using IHE template ID? WHy can we not use 2 different template ID.
Motion - will document as an open issue and keep the same template ID
- Tone second
- No further discussion
- Abstain - 2
- Against - 0
- For - 6
Table 6.3.1.D.4-1
- CED data element mapped to the IPS CDA
- Lori - Andrea is to do the mapping at element level
- Second - John Donnelly
- Abstain - 0
- Against - 0
- For - 6