2012-01-16 DESD WGM Minutes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Attendance
Location: Magnolia |
Date: 2012-01-16 Time: 7:30-8:30 pm CST | ||
| Attendee | Name | Affiliation |
| X | Durwin Day | Attachments |
| X | Craig Gabron | Attachments |
| X | Suzanne Gonzales-Webb | Community Based Collaborative Care |
| X | William Goosen | Patient Care |
| X | Nick Halsey | Patient Safety |
| X | Laura Heermann Langford | Emergency Care |
| X | Edward Helton | RCRIM |
| X | Martin Hurrell | Generation of Anesthesia Standards |
| X | Alean Kirnak | PHER |
| X | Joginder Madra | PHER |
| X | James McClay | Emergency Care |
| X | Jim McKinley | Attachments |
| X | Peter Park | Emergency Care |
| X | Melva Peters | Pharmacy |
| X | Dianne Reeves | Clinical Operability Council |
| X | John Rhoads | Healthcare Devices |
| X | Rob Savage | PHER |
| X | Harry Solomon | Imaging Integration |
| X | John Speakman | RCRIM |
| X | Anita Walden | Clinical Operability Council |
| X | Mead Walker | DESD |
| X | Mollie Ullman-Cullere | Clinical Genomics) |
| X | Alex Deleon | Patient Administration |
| X | Jan Wittenberg | Public Health Emergency Response (PHER) |
| X | Anmon Shabo | Clinical Genomics |
| X | Scott Bolte | Glinical Genomics |
| X | Daryl Thomas | Clinical Genomics |
Discussion
- Motion to change the composition of the steering division – add Clinical Genomics, drop Imaging Integration. Imaging Integration would like to leave. Q: what is the rationale. A: Imaging has close times to structured documents and OO. Clinical Genomics says they are not finding out about projects that are relevant to them. William wonders whether structured documents ought to be closer to the domain experts group – they are working with a lot of clinical stuff. Several people feel the need for more attention to joint projects across steering division boundaries.
Vote: Opposed: 0, Abstain 0, Approve: Everyone else.
- Use of the PBS metrics: (project, ballot, xxx) report card on work group health. These metrics are going to be used as part of the project approval process. If a group has a number of negative items, the group is going to be asked to address the reason before proceeding with any new project. Note if a project is past its dates, these can and should be pushed back to become more realistic. Anita notes that CIC has put off publishing some items that passed because a subsequent ballot is needed. We feel this is a reasonable explanation for the delay. Note, the work group is responsible for the time line for projects – it can change dates without seeking approval from another body. Discussion with PC – The WG feels that Care provision health concern, and care composition have been withdrawn – this should not be listed as unpublished.
- Presentation of GAS PSS: This is a new project to create a standard representation of vital signs and other physiological data, using CDA. The goal would be to create an implementation guide specifically for this part of the record. William feels that a vital signs RMIM has already been created and is in the ballot. GAS agrees that it will examine the existing RMIM (REPC_RM001300UV) and current detailed clinical model for heart rate as part of this project. Nancy Orvis notes the existence of a related project – the “black box” – in Massachusetts.
Motion to approve: William Gossen, second Jeff Carp Vote: Opposed: 0, Abstain 0, Approve: Everyone else.
- Work Group Health Review: Note, the SD has three committees in the healthiest category. There is a new emphasis on posting minutes. If no minutes, it will mean an automatic red score. In the future, more severe repercussions can be expected. Emergency wonders – how do they have 6 active projects? Ed notes that projects are created from the 3 year plan provided as well as being generated from project scope statements. (Send emergency a copy of the co-chair handbook.)
- Note, Clinical Genomics has two new project scope statements that have not been reviewed by the SD. We agree to go over them.
- A project to define the domain analysis requirements for DNA sequencing. There has been a lot of activity in this area lately – institutions want to know what to do with this data. The WG wants to do a V2 message, CDA, and V3 CMET all from the same requirements. This is an extension of a current project. Question: why do they want to do all three data representation modes? Ans: we have emerging groups that like V3, but there are existing users of this data who are committed to V2.
Vote on DNA sequencing: Opposed: 0, Abstain 0, Approve: Everyone else.
- A project to address family history. It is currently a published standard. It will be updated to become release 2 based on feedback from ISO. In addition the representation of mutations will be made consistent with the representation in V2 and V3.
Vote on family history: Opposed: 0, Abstain 0, Approve: Everyone else.
