Difference between revisions of "Pharm Plan Minutes 2014.10.29"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
:::* '''Action item: Determine how profile name changes are performed (Jürgen)''' | :::* '''Action item: Determine how profile name changes are performed (Jürgen)''' | ||
| + | * To use-case „Patient tells the physician that he takes this or that medication“? | ||
| + | :* We need another profile in the manner of the other Community Content Profiles | ||
| + | ::* Name: Medication Statement | ||
| + | :* Introduce this profile into CMPD with new actor | ||
| + | ::* Actor: Medication Statement Informer | ||
| + | :* Entry: Medication Statement Entry | ||
| + | ::* PCC Medication template is the parent | ||
| + | :* The giver of the statement (informant) shall be expressed as "participant" (to be able to document the role "patient") | ||
| + | ::* Same concept as in other Content Profiles (author on document level OR participant on section level) | ||
| + | :* Consider negationIndicator for "I don't take ..." and reason why | ||
| + | * Formally this new work-item is derived from the "Medication Administration" work-item, but has turned out to be a new profile | ||
| + | :* '''Decision: This new profile is approved to be a new work-item in this season''' | ||
| + | :* Name: "Medication Statement" | ||
| + | * Team | ||
| + | :* Work-item lead (Medication Administration + Medication Statement): Jürgen | ||
| + | :* Member: Jose, Stephane, Michael, Kai (review) | ||
* Defining next steps | * Defining next steps | ||
| + | :* Medication Administration: Create first profile proposal on the basis of new profile template and the current work (Jürgen) | ||
| + | :* Medication Statement: Create first profile proposal on the basis of new profile template (Jürgen) | ||
| + | ::* Action item: Trigger our group when finished (Jürgen) | ||
| Line 137: | Line 156: | ||
=13:30 - 14:00 Several Community Pharmacy related issues= | =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. | ||
| + | :* Discussion/Decision | ||
| + | ::* The only situation is missing, that an adviser declare a CHANGE but NOT approving/rejecting it (needs another one to approve/reject). We don't see a real use-case right now. Also we have the statusCode element (active/completed) which could be use to cover that. | ||
| + | ::* '''Decision: We don't make a change now but wait for an actual real use-case coming.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | * 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Discussion/Decision | ||
| + | ::* Postponed. We look out for actual use-cases, which are not covered by the current set of commands (e.g. combined with statusCode=active) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* DIS issue: The Dispenser also needs Profession and Specialty | * 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 | :* Proposal: Exchange <performer> by <author> for the Dispenser. Change <author> by a second <author> for a possible prescriber of the underlying prescription | ||
| − | * | + | :* Discussion/Decision |
| − | + | ::* Yes, Profession and Specialty is needed for Dispenser. Do the change as proposed. | |
| + | |||
* PRE issue: Precondition is often used to describe dosage related information (e.g. "Take on demand") | * PRE issue: Precondition is often used to describe dosage related information (e.g. "Take on demand") | ||
:* Question: Shall it be moved under "Dosage instructions"? | :* Question: Shall it be moved under "Dosage instructions"? | ||
| + | :* Discussion/Decision | ||
| + | ::* We identify preconditions which could be counted as part of the dosage instructions, but also other ones. | ||
| + | ::* Consequently we leave it untouched. | ||
| + | |||
* 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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Discussion/Decision | ||
| + | ::* Ok, perform the solution as outlined | ||
| + | |||
* PML issue: CH brought up that the PML might be used for "feeding" a medication plan | * PML issue: CH brought up that the PML might be used for "feeding" a medication plan | ||
:* Discussion: Currently PML is intended as a "read-only", on-demand document. Shall that be changed? Should we add a note somewhere to clarify? | :* Discussion: Currently PML is intended as a "read-only", on-demand document. Shall that be changed? Should we add a note somewhere to clarify? | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Discussion/Decision | ||
| + | ::* Postponed to next TCon | ||
| Line 161: | Line 202: | ||
=14:00 - 15:15 ISO liaison= | =14:00 - 15:15 ISO liaison= | ||
* Report on ISO meeting in Berlin (Jürgen) | * Report on ISO meeting in Berlin (Jürgen) | ||
| + | |||
* Commenting on ISO/DIS 17523 "Requirements for electronic prescriptions" | * Commenting on ISO/DIS 17523 "Requirements for electronic prescriptions" | ||
:* [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Pharmacy/yr6_2014-2015/Technical_Committee/Other/ISO%2017523%20ePrescriptions ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Pharmacy/yr6_2014-2015/Technical_Committee/Other/ISO%2017523%20ePrescriptions] | :* [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Pharmacy/yr6_2014-2015/Technical_Committee/Other/ISO%2017523%20ePrescriptions ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Pharmacy/yr6_2014-2015/Technical_Committee/Other/ISO%2017523%20ePrescriptions] | ||
:* Comments received by Leonidas, Jose, Jürgen | :* Comments received by Leonidas, Jose, Jürgen | ||
:* Defining next steps | :* Defining next steps | ||
| + | |||
* ISO DTS 19293 "Requirements for the record of Dispense Medicinal Products" | * ISO DTS 19293 "Requirements for the record of Dispense Medicinal Products" | ||
:* Discussion | :* Discussion | ||
:* Defining next steps | :* Defining next steps | ||
| + | |||
* ISO/DTS 17251, "Business requirements for the exchange of structured dose instructions for medicinal products" | * ISO/DTS 17251, "Business requirements for the exchange of structured dose instructions for medicinal products" | ||
:* Discussion | :* Discussion | ||
Revision as of 09:40, 29 October 2014
08:00 - 08:15 Welcome
- Participants
- Jürgen Brandstätter
- Leonidas Tzimis
- Jose Costa Teixeira
- Michael Tan
- Jacqueline Surugue
- Marc Robberecht
- Stephane Spahni
- Simon Lettelier
- Kai Heitmann
- Angela Merzweiler
- Christof Gessner
- Stephen Chu
- Review and Approve Agenda
- Approved with changes in order
08:15 - 08:30 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)
- Jürgen has contacted Nancy and Celina, but hasn't received an answer yet.
- Action item: Do a follow-up (Jürgen)
- IHE Joint meeting with SIG HL7 Pharmacy : 15 May 2015, Paris, France (Jacqueline)
- Expected person count: 17
- Jacqueline has contacted Francois Macary, he said that he will check, but hasn't received an answer yet
- Action item: Do a follow-up (Jacqueline)
- Alternatives: Marc can ask at the AGFA office in Ivry / Paris
- Action item: Ask AGFA about the size of available meeting rooms
- Regular IHE F2F meeting : 18-19 June 2015, Chania (Crete), Greece
- Leonidas has 3 found opportunities for meeting place
- 1) Inside Leonidas' hospital of Chania
- 2) Building of the Private Pharmacists association of Chanis
- 3) Meeting room in the City hall. Major of the city has been contacted (best option)
- Leonidas will send out information for travel and accommodation
- IMPORTANT: Book room and flight early, because it's high holiday season at this time!
- City is small, hotels are all in the old city in the center of the town.
- Chania has an airport. Three flights to Athens per day. Ryan air operates.
- Bus from Heraklion to Chania takes about 2 hours.
08:30 - 09:00 Hospital-Community Use Cases Whitepaper
- Current version
- Discussion
- Can it be published? Open issues?
- Still needs some review/addition
- Decision: The Whitepaper will NOT be published itself, but will be inserted into the Common Pharmacy Whitepaper
- Project Management and Todos
- 1. Use-case in document "Collaboration between connected Hospital Pharmacies" will be merged into the Cross-Domain WP
- 2. Cross-domain WP + chapter 10 of Common Pharmacy WP will be reviewed
- Action item: Stephane & colleagues
- 3. Cross-domain WP will be merged into chapter 10 of Common Pharmacy WP. Cross-domain WP will be abandoned.
- 4. Overwork Information Model of Common Pharmacy WP
- 5. Publish new version of Common Pharmacy WP
- A "Use-case overview" document has been created and will be maintained from now on
- ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Pharmacy/Technical_Framework/Use-case%20overview/Use-case%20overview.xlsx
- Action item: Fill the document with all use-cases already defined (Jose)
- CMPD, HMW, Hospital&Community WP, Supply chain WP, General Pharmacy WP, etc.
09:15 - 10:45 Medication Treatment
- Proposal
- Presentation of project "MonDossierMedical.ch" / Geneve region / Switzerland (Stephane)
- []
- Presentation of project "Medikationsplan" in North Rhine Westfalia / Germany (Kai)
- []
- Vision of the work ahead (Jürgen, Stephane)
- Discussion
- New version of slides created during meeting
- []
- Agreed on the working title "Medication Therapy Plan Item"
- Shaped, how this work fits into the landscape (slide 3)
- Formal approval of the new work-item proposal
- Approve
- Team
- Work-item lead: Stephane
- Members: Jürgen, Michael, Stephen, Kai, Jose, Jacqueline, Leonidas
- Defining next steps
- Learn profile template and how to write use-case stories (derive from e.g. CMPD) and insert description of the use-case into it (Stephane)
- Action item: Trigger our group when finished with this work (Stephane)
- After that, choose data-elements, codes for sections, etc. based on PRE specification
11:30 - 12:30 Pharmacy Administration
- Current work:
- Wrapping up work done so far, open issues and how to continue (Jürgen)
- Discussion
- Group discovered that the names of the Community Content Profiles are kind of misleading. A rename should be considered:
- Pharmacy Prescription -> Medication Prescription
- Pharmacy Dispense -> Medication Dispense
- Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Advice -> Pharmaceutical Advice
- Pharmacy Medication List -> Medication List
- Problem: Acronym is PML -> simply let is like it is
- Pharmacy Administration -> Medication Administration
- Decision: These changes are decided
- Action item: Determine how profile name changes are performed (Jürgen)
- To use-case „Patient tells the physician that he takes this or that medication“?
- We need another profile in the manner of the other Community Content Profiles
- Name: Medication Statement
- Introduce this profile into CMPD with new actor
- Actor: Medication Statement Informer
- Entry: Medication Statement Entry
- PCC Medication template is the parent
- The giver of the statement (informant) shall be expressed as "participant" (to be able to document the role "patient")
- Same concept as in other Content Profiles (author on document level OR participant on section level)
- Consider negationIndicator for "I don't take ..." and reason why
- Formally this new work-item is derived from the "Medication Administration" work-item, but has turned out to be a new profile
- Decision: This new profile is approved to be a new work-item in this season
- Name: "Medication Statement"
- Team
- Work-item lead (Medication Administration + Medication Statement): Jürgen
- Member: Jose, Stephane, Michael, Kai (review)
- Defining next steps
- Medication Administration: Create first profile proposal on the basis of new profile template and the current work (Jürgen)
- Medication Statement: Create first profile proposal on the basis of new profile template (Jürgen)
- Action item: Trigger our group when finished (Jürgen)
12:30 - 13:30 Lunch
- 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.
- Discussion/Decision
- The only situation is missing, that an adviser declare a CHANGE but NOT approving/rejecting it (needs another one to approve/reject). We don't see a real use-case right now. Also we have the statusCode element (active/completed) which could be use to cover that.
- Decision: We don't make a change now but wait for an actual real use-case coming.
- 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.
- Discussion/Decision
- Postponed. We look out for actual use-cases, which are not covered by the current set of commands (e.g. combined with statusCode=active)
- 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
- Discussion/Decision
- Yes, Profession and Specialty is needed for Dispenser. Do the change as proposed.
- PRE issue: Precondition is often used to describe dosage related information (e.g. "Take on demand")
- Question: Shall it be moved under "Dosage instructions"?
- Discussion/Decision
- We identify preconditions which could be counted as part of the dosage instructions, but also other ones.
- Consequently we leave it untouched.
- 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
- Discussion/Decision
- Ok, perform the solution as outlined
- PML issue: CH brought up that the PML might be used for "feeding" a medication plan
- Discussion: Currently PML is intended as a "read-only", on-demand document. Shall that be changed? Should we add a note somewhere to clarify?
- Discussion/Decision
- Postponed to next TCon
14:00 - 15:15 ISO liaison
- Report on ISO meeting in Berlin (Jürgen)
- Commenting on ISO/DIS 17523 "Requirements for electronic prescriptions"
- ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Pharmacy/yr6_2014-2015/Technical_Committee/Other/ISO%2017523%20ePrescriptions
- Comments received by Leonidas, Jose, Jürgen
- Defining next steps
- 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