Difference between revisions of "Pharm Tech Minutes 2010-4"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
== Welcome from Co-Chairs, roll call of participants. == | == Welcome from Co-Chairs, roll call of participants. == | ||
| Line 41: | Line 40: | ||
Approved! | Approved! | ||
| − | |||
== Drafting the framework for Pharmacy: == | == Drafting the framework for Pharmacy: == | ||
| Line 66: | Line 64: | ||
Fredrik: 5+3 countries do plan pilots to e-prescription/dispense. Most of the systems come from the administrational point of view, not clinical. Some of the decisions in epSOS might be not long-living. There is the expectation that IHE Pharmacy brings up new input also for epSOS evolvement. | Fredrik: 5+3 countries do plan pilots to e-prescription/dispense. Most of the systems come from the administrational point of view, not clinical. Some of the decisions in epSOS might be not long-living. There is the expectation that IHE Pharmacy brings up new input also for epSOS evolvement. | ||
| + | |||
Jacqueline: What are the next steps of epSOS / Pharmacy collaboration? | Jacqueline: What are the next steps of epSOS / Pharmacy collaboration? | ||
| + | |||
Geert: IHE Pharmacy shall official apply for getting the epSOS specifications as input. Enhancements of epSOS on existing IHE profiles should be brought in into IHE. | Geert: IHE Pharmacy shall official apply for getting the epSOS specifications as input. Enhancements of epSOS on existing IHE profiles should be brought in into IHE. | ||
| + | |||
Fredrik: Agree to start this process. Shall be directed to him. | Fredrik: Agree to start this process. Shall be directed to him. | ||
Netherlands | Netherlands | ||
| + | |||
Michiel: There has been a lot of development already in the Netherlands about an exchange mechanism for pharmacy. Already implemented is the overview about the dispensed medication (based on EDI and HL7 messaging and a central registry, which points to the pharmacy which holds the actual data). | Michiel: There has been a lot of development already in the Netherlands about an exchange mechanism for pharmacy. Already implemented is the overview about the dispensed medication (based on EDI and HL7 messaging and a central registry, which points to the pharmacy which holds the actual data). | ||
Attitude is changing from focusing on the own country to a more international collaboration. Experience could be brought into this group. | Attitude is changing from focusing on the own country to a more international collaboration. Experience could be brought into this group. | ||
| − | Discussion for decision : | + | |
| + | '''Discussion for decision :''' | ||
| + | |||
Introduction: What’s our task to do? | Introduction: What’s our task to do? | ||
Jürgen: Gives an overview about the structure of an IHE Integration Profile | Jürgen: Gives an overview about the structure of an IHE Integration Profile | ||
| + | |||
Decision 1: Create/develop 1 or 2 profiles? | Decision 1: Create/develop 1 or 2 profiles? | ||
| + | |||
Strong distinction between community and hospital: community is “document-based”, hospital is “message-based” | Strong distinction between community and hospital: community is “document-based”, hospital is “message-based” | ||
That results in dividing at least into 2 different Integration profiles (although there are wide areas of similarity, eg. The information model) | That results in dividing at least into 2 different Integration profiles (although there are wide areas of similarity, eg. The information model) | ||
| + | |||
Decision: | Decision: | ||
| + | |||
Integration profile 1: “CMPD: Community Medication Prescription and Dispense” | Integration profile 1: “CMPD: Community Medication Prescription and Dispense” | ||
| + | |||
Integration profile 2: “HMW: Hospital Medication Workflow” | Integration profile 2: “HMW: Hospital Medication Workflow” | ||
Integration profile must cover the whole use-case | Integration profile must cover the whole use-case | ||
| + | |||
Discussion about staying to the “pharmaceutical advice”: | Discussion about staying to the “pharmaceutical advice”: | ||
| + | |||
Michiel: epSOS has decided not to use that, because there are member states, where this concept is not used | Michiel: epSOS has decided not to use that, because there are member states, where this concept is not used | ||
| + | |||
Viktor: It’s called “4 eyes concept” in Austria. This function is crucial for the profile being accepted in Austria. | Viktor: It’s called “4 eyes concept” in Austria. This function is crucial for the profile being accepted in Austria. | ||
| + | |||
Jose: Effort is significant. We should keep it simple in the first step and add it later. | Jose: Effort is significant. We should keep it simple in the first step and add it later. | ||
| + | |||
Francisco: This concept is important. It should stay in. | Francisco: This concept is important. It should stay in. | ||
| + | |||
Isabelle: Actor “Pharmaceutical advisor” plus transactions as option | Isabelle: Actor “Pharmaceutical advisor” plus transactions as option | ||
| + | |||
Decision: We take it as it is and try to include it in the profile. If the editorial team can’t manage to hold the timeframe, it put this to decision again. | Decision: We take it as it is and try to include it in the profile. If the editorial team can’t manage to hold the timeframe, it put this to decision again. | ||
| + | |||
Discussion about “Workflow” | Discussion about “Workflow” | ||
| + | |||
Decision: | Decision: | ||
Dispense will be a Document and can be persisted in XDS | Dispense will be a Document and can be persisted in XDS | ||
| Line 103: | Line 121: | ||
Jose, Jürgen, Viktor: This is not part of the basic workflow, it should come in a second step | Jose, Jürgen, Viktor: This is not part of the basic workflow, it should come in a second step | ||
| − | Integration profile 2: | + | Integration profile 2: “HMW: Hospital Medication Workflow” |
| + | |||
A Volume 3 is created containing with Content Specifications. | A Volume 3 is created containing with Content Specifications. | ||
| + | |||
Kept under authority of Pharmacy but according to the rules of PCC | Kept under authority of Pharmacy but according to the rules of PCC | ||
| + | |||
Contains all content specifications (documents or messages) | Contains all content specifications (documents or messages) | ||
| + | |||
Use case decision | Use case decision | ||
| + | |||
Volunteers for editorial work to use-cases: | Volunteers for editorial work to use-cases: | ||
| − | Coordination | + | |
| + | * Coordination | ||
Jürgen | Jürgen | ||
| − | Community | + | * Community |
Jürgen | Jürgen | ||
Viktor | Viktor | ||
epSOS | epSOS | ||
Michiel for Netherlands | Michiel for Netherlands | ||
| − | Hospital | + | * Hospital |
Francisco, Orlando | Francisco, Orlando | ||
Jose | Jose | ||
| Line 122: | Line 146: | ||
Simon | Simon | ||
Isabelle (just review) | Isabelle (just review) | ||
| − | Selection of relevant standards | + | |
| − | Roadmap/ schedule for the forthcoming year | + | |
| − | IHE Pharmacy input for ITI road map (strategic decisions) | + | == Selection of relevant standards == |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | identify options and decision process. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Roadmap/ schedule for the forthcoming year == | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == IHE Pharmacy input for ITI road map (strategic decisions) == | ||
Revision as of 16:23, 19 May 2010
Welcome from Co-Chairs, roll call of participants.
Jaqueline Surugue, User Cochair, Hospital Pharmacist, France
Jürgen Brandstätter, Vendor, CodeWerk, Standardization, Austria On behalf of Franz Pfeifer, Vendor Cochair (excused)
Simon Letellier, Secretary, Hospital Pharmacist, France
Members
- Michiel Sprenger, User, Nictiz, Netherlands
- Geert Claeys, Vendor, Agfa, Belgium
- Jose Costa Teixeira, Vendor, Agfa, Belgium
- Isabelle Gibaud, Vendor, SIB, France
- Charles Parisot, Vendor, GE, France
Welcomed
- Viktor Hafner, User, Community Pharmacist, Austria
- Francisco Machado, User, Hospital Pharmacists, Portugal
- Orlando Rodrigues, Vendor, Glintt, Portugal
Guests
- Fredrik Linden, Coordinator epSOS, Sweden
- Lisa Spellman, HIMSS, USA
Lisa Spellman is asked for doing some information efforts in the United States for the existence of this group to generating non-European members to the group.
Approval of the minutes of the last TConf/meeting.
Approved!
Drafting the framework for Pharmacy:
Hospital pharmacy profiles : submission from Australia, APHP, Austria Australia Geert: No proposal received yet. We hold them in the mailing list loop. APHP
Jose: There are challenges in the logistics of drugs between hospital/hospital and hospital/community. This ist not a current use-case, but should be considered.
Jacqueline: There can be drugs, which are not available in community pharmacy (eg. in France, Portugal). For these the hospital takes the role of a community pharmacy. This use-case is already in the whitepaper.
Jose: The difference to the “real” community pharmacy use-case is small – just a change in the business rules. Austria Community pharmacy and pan hospital/community is main target. Hospital pharmacy is already covered well by HIS. Logistics is no topic. Community pharmacy profiles : submission from epSOS, Australia, Austria epSOS
Michiel: Only about unplanned care, only community pharmacy. A prescription in the home country can be dispensed in the visiting country. A dispensing event in the visiting country can sent be to the home country. Transcoding shall take place (brand-names will be resolved to substances/dose etc.) Current status: Finalizing of the specification. Life pilots shall be implemented in 2011. Extension of the use-cases: The basic use-case is a cross-border prescription/dispense event, but it’s not the most common use-case. Much more common is the prescription AND dispense in country B, but with information of the home country as support as well as communication backwards (for complete medication overview).
Fredrik: 5+3 countries do plan pilots to e-prescription/dispense. Most of the systems come from the administrational point of view, not clinical. Some of the decisions in epSOS might be not long-living. There is the expectation that IHE Pharmacy brings up new input also for epSOS evolvement.
Jacqueline: What are the next steps of epSOS / Pharmacy collaboration?
Geert: IHE Pharmacy shall official apply for getting the epSOS specifications as input. Enhancements of epSOS on existing IHE profiles should be brought in into IHE.
Fredrik: Agree to start this process. Shall be directed to him. Netherlands
Michiel: There has been a lot of development already in the Netherlands about an exchange mechanism for pharmacy. Already implemented is the overview about the dispensed medication (based on EDI and HL7 messaging and a central registry, which points to the pharmacy which holds the actual data). Attitude is changing from focusing on the own country to a more international collaboration. Experience could be brought into this group.
Discussion for decision :
Introduction: What’s our task to do? Jürgen: Gives an overview about the structure of an IHE Integration Profile
Decision 1: Create/develop 1 or 2 profiles?
Strong distinction between community and hospital: community is “document-based”, hospital is “message-based” That results in dividing at least into 2 different Integration profiles (although there are wide areas of similarity, eg. The information model)
Decision:
Integration profile 1: “CMPD: Community Medication Prescription and Dispense”
Integration profile 2: “HMW: Hospital Medication Workflow”
Integration profile must cover the whole use-case
Discussion about staying to the “pharmaceutical advice”:
Michiel: epSOS has decided not to use that, because there are member states, where this concept is not used
Viktor: It’s called “4 eyes concept” in Austria. This function is crucial for the profile being accepted in Austria.
Jose: Effort is significant. We should keep it simple in the first step and add it later.
Francisco: This concept is important. It should stay in.
Isabelle: Actor “Pharmaceutical advisor” plus transactions as option
Decision: We take it as it is and try to include it in the profile. If the editorial team can’t manage to hold the timeframe, it put this to decision again.
Discussion about “Workflow”
Decision: Dispense will be a Document and can be persisted in XDS Transactions: Submit-Prescription, Retrieve-Prescriptions Prescription will be a Document and can be persisted in XDS Submit-Dispense, Retrieve-Dispense The transient aspects of “Ordering” are excluded in the profile. This should be generally discussed together with ITI in conjunction with all other “Ordering”/Workflow topics (e.g. Lab, Referral, etc.) We leverage the outcome of ITI in the future Discussion about “Query recently dispensed drugs” Michiel: This is an essential functionality for quality assurance, which is required in many European countries. Jose, Jürgen, Viktor: This is not part of the basic workflow, it should come in a second step
Integration profile 2: “HMW: Hospital Medication Workflow”
A Volume 3 is created containing with Content Specifications.
Kept under authority of Pharmacy but according to the rules of PCC
Contains all content specifications (documents or messages)
Use case decision
Volunteers for editorial work to use-cases:
- Coordination
Jürgen
- Community
Jürgen Viktor epSOS Michiel for Netherlands
- Hospital
Francisco, Orlando Jose Jacqueline Simon Isabelle (just review)
Selection of relevant standards
identify options and decision process.