DESD Work Group Formation-Clinical Quality
Revision as of 22:53, 30 November 2012 by Trippes (talk | contribs) (Created page with 'Return to Domain Experts Electronic Voting Summaries There is a request for a new Work Group that will be a part of Domain Experts. The GOM requires a 2/3 approval, with 60…')
Return to Domain Experts Electronic Voting Summaries
There is a request for a new Work Group that will be a part of Domain Experts. The GOM requires a 2/3 approval, with 60% participation (9) of the DESD WG's. Please review the document below and cast your vote. Enter your name and Name and Work Group. This poll will be open until 11/3 unless quorum is reached.
Clinical Quality Work Group Formation Request
PBS Metrics Not applicable
- Summary - Passed (6/2/1/2)
- Number of participants: 9
- Most popular option: Affirmative
- Votes in favor: 6
- Comments: 2
- Non-participating work groups counted as abstaining solely for the purpose of counting quorum: 0
| Co-Chair | Affirmative | Negative | Abstain |
| Craig Gabron AWG | OK | ||
| Dianne Reeves (CIC) | OK | ||
| Mead walker (PSWG) | OK | ||
| Melva Peters (Pharmacy) | OK | ||
| Pele Yu (Child Health) | OK | ||
| Jim McClay (ECWG) | OK | ||
| Edward Helton-RCRIM | OK | ||
| John Rhoads (HCD/DEV) | OK | ||
| Martin Hurrell (Anesthesia) | OK | ||
| Count | 6 | 2 | 1 |
Comments
McClay Monday, October 22, 2012 2:32:45 AM GMT-12:00
Formation of this workgroup will lead to fragmentation of domain expertise. The Patient Care, EHR, Emergency Care, CDS, etc. already have a focus on improving the quality of care through improved information management. The proposed workgroup supposes that quality is somehow different.
Melva Peters Via email on Wed 10/24/2012
Pharmacy would like to ask the new WG to explain better what they mean with “information technology standards in support of improving health care quality“. We believe that our Rx standard fits that description just the same. Then their relationship to Structured Documents should be made clear. The scope description seems to be paradigm-agnostic, but the only ‘explanation of demonstrated need’ is tied to four (unnamed) SD projects. It appears that this Work Group is an SD spin-off only. We think it’s insufficient to change their name to reflect that though… Any (new) group should produce materials that are not tied to any specific implementation style. Since messages and documents are not (yet) compatible at a payload-level, that may mean they need to produce two sets of artefacts (CMETs for messages and templates for documents). We should no longer tie up domain expertise to a specific implementation style!
