Pharm Tech Minutes 2011.10.31

From IHE Wiki
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

CPMD / XDW dedicated TCon


  • Brandstätter, Jürgen (CodeWerk Software Services and Development GmbH, Vendor co-chair)
  • Cocchiglia, Arianna (Arsenal.IT)
  • Demarmels, Marco (Lake Griffin, LLC)
  • Jansek, Stefan (Wien Medical informatics University, Austria)
  • Lagouarde, Philippe (Cegedim, IHE France)
  • Letellier, Simon (EAHP, secretary)
  • Parisot, Charles (GE)
  • Peytchev, Vassil (Epic)
  • Surugue, Jacqueline (EAHP, User co-chair)
  • Zalunardo, Luca (Arsenal.IT)


Presentation of Philippe Lagouarde, IHE France co-chair to the group.

Interested to learn more about CMPD/XDW after Charles Parisot's presentation at the IHE France F2F meeting.

Proposed basic workflow : Shall it be required mandatory as the “minimum workflow” in the profile?


After discussing the slides and the recent emails from Tom and Charles the following decisions were taken:

  • Scenario 1
  • Scenario 1 is approved as being correct and accepted as an already balloted workflow implicitly expressed in the narrative of the CMPD and PADV profiles.
  • The diagram of the slide will be added to the profile to make that more obvious to the reader.
  • Exactly this workflow (without any change) will be explicitly expressed in XDW tasks to stay consistent
  • Advantage: This proceeding requires no discussion about the workflow itself (it is already approved by release of the profiles)
  • Scenario 2
  • Scenario 2 will be introduced in the CMPD profile
  • It is considered as a scenario without any “validation” at all (no Adviser, no Advice documents, etc.)
  • Also this workflow will be expressed in XDW tasks
  • Reason: It seems that there are some real-world requirements for having that
  • Important: The narrative (implicit) description of the workflows and their (explicit) expression in XDW tasks have to be consistent!
  • Next steps
  • Since especially scenario 2 was in email discussion recently both scenarios will be evaluated in season 2011/2012
  • Are they sufficient for their purpose or shall they be changed/enhanced?
  • Do we need any more scenarios?

Shall there be one workflow document per prescription or one per prescription item?

  • Decision: Just XDW-WD (workflow document) BUT one task per prescription item within the WD
  • Advantage of the compromise: All information in one WD but yet a good distinction of each prescription item
  • CP on XDW is needed
  • The XDW-WD (workflow document) needs the possibility for a task to …
1) reference a specific item of a referenced input/output document
  • in our case a specific prescription item of the prescription
2) reference another task within the WD document to establish “chains” of tasks which belong together
  • In our case the linkage between the different tasks of a prescription item:
One “Ordering task” of the prescription item
One or more “Validation task” of the prescription item
One or more “Dispensation tasks” of the prescription item

Shall we use “In progress” states or leave all tasks as “born completed” ?

  • A question easier to solve after previous discussions.
  • All tasks are “born completed” with one exception:
  • In case of a repeatable prescription item, the Dispensation task of this prescription item will be started with “In progress” at the first repeat and ended with “Completed” at the last repeat.

Who does what?

  • Jürgen continues the work on CP-PHARM-018 and extends it to match the decisions above
  • Luca and Charles create the CP on XDW and publish it to ITI