Difference between revisions of "DESD PSS: Patient Care Negation PSS"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
*Link to PSS
 
*Link to PSS
 
[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/desd/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Ftrunk%2FDocuments%2FProjectScopeStatements%2F2016%2FHL7%2520Project%2520Scope%2520Statement%2520v2015.1_Negation_i%2520%255B2626467%255D.docx&sortby=date&view=log Negation PSS]
 
[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/desd/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Ftrunk%2FDocuments%2FProjectScopeStatements%2F2016%2FHL7%2520Project%2520Scope%2520Statement%2520v2015.1_Negation_i%2520%255B2626467%255D.docx&sortby=date&view=log Negation PSS]
 +
* Link to updated PSS based on discussion and comments
 +
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/desd/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Ftrunk%2FDocuments%2FProjectScopeStatements%2F2016%2FHL7%2520Project%2520Scope%2520Statement%2520v2015.1_Negation_j%2520%25282016-09-17%2529.docx&sortby=date&view=log UPDATED PSS]
  
 
*Work Group Health: Green
 
*Work Group Health: Green
Line 45: Line 47:
 
| Count||10||0||0
 
| Count||10||0||0
 
|-
 
|-
 +
|Comments
 +
 +
*Suggested Revision part 2:
 +
**Any example of a negated statement should fit a requirement; an example that does not fit a requirement may be a new requirement. Design solutions could use this list to demonstrate that they support all requirement--or to indicate any requirement not supported--and to articulate the correct pattern for representing each requirement. Conducting this design work is not in scope for this project.
 +
**17/09/16 12:23 PM Jay Lyle
 +
 +
*Suggested Revision part 1:
 +
**Provide a set of requirements for the representation of negated clinical data (e.g., absent findings, procedures not done), which standards developers (e.g., FHIR, CDA)can use to confirm that their specifications meet all requirements, demonstrate recommended patterns, and identify out-of-specification patterns.
 +
**17/09/16 12:22 PM Jay Lyle
 +
 +
*In order
 +
**1. MnM and Vocabulary are already co-sponsors.
 +
**2. "We would also appreciate a clearer description of the project scope statement": some changes have been made & clarification requested.
 +
**3. CG would like to be included. We have biweekly meetings which have been posted on the HL7 listserv. All documentation is posted on the wiki.
 +
***CG is welcome to co-sponsor or be listed as an interested party if they would like.
 +
**4. Reword to remove implication that design work will be performed: done.
 +
**17/09/16 12:22 PM Jay Lyle
 +
 +
*We recommend the Foundation and Technology Steering Division's work groups sponsor this project. Please consider MnM and Vocabulary. We would also appreciate a clearer description of the project scope statement.
 +
**25/08/16 2:26 PM Laura Rappleye (PHER)
 +
 +
*While CG has been invited for joint meetings at WGMs to discuss negation modeling, we would like to be include in discussion outside of WGMs since there are several members who could contribute but can't attend the WGM.
 +
**23/08/16 11:23 AM Bob Milius (Clinical Genomics)
 +
 +
*Could you please clarify the scope of the project. We would be interested in more details on what you are proposing. Thanks.
 +
**19/08/16 12:02 PM Laura Rappleye (PHER)
 +
 +
*This sentence from the "Project Scope" section may be interpreted as an implementation requirement, which is out of scope:
 +
**"Design solutions would be expected to support all classes--or to indicate any class not supported ...."
 +
**Suggest change: "Design solutions could employ this list by demonstrating how they support the classes--or indicating any class not supported--and articulating the correct pattern for representing each class. Conducting this design work is out of scope for this project"
 +
**16/08/16 8:29 PM Stephen Chu - PCWG

Latest revision as of 16:21, 26 September 2016

Return to Domain Experts Electronic Voting Summaries

  • Please vote on the PSS for the Patient Care. Enter your name and WG along with your vote. 1 vote per WG. Poll open until August 27, 2016
  • Link to PSS

Negation PSS

  • Link to updated PSS based on discussion and comments
  • Work Group Health: Green
  • Review of PBS Metrics: Green
  • Summary -
    • Number of participants: 10
    • Most popular option: Affirmative
    • Votes in favor: 10
    • Comments: 0
    • Non-participating work groups counted as abstaining solely for the purpose of counting quorum

Vote and Comments

' Affirmative Negative (with comments) Abstain
John Kiser (RCRIM) OK
Russ Leftwich (LHS) OK
Laura Rappleye (PHER) OK
Chris Millett (CQI) OK
John Walsh (Anesthesia) OK
Stephen Chu (PC) OK
Bob Milius (Clinical Genomics) OK
Ed Helton (RCRIM) OK
Jim Kretz (CBCC) OK
Mitra Rocca (CIC) OK
Count 10 0 0
Comments
  • Suggested Revision part 2:
    • Any example of a negated statement should fit a requirement; an example that does not fit a requirement may be a new requirement. Design solutions could use this list to demonstrate that they support all requirement--or to indicate any requirement not supported--and to articulate the correct pattern for representing each requirement. Conducting this design work is not in scope for this project.
    • 17/09/16 12:23 PM Jay Lyle
  • Suggested Revision part 1:
    • Provide a set of requirements for the representation of negated clinical data (e.g., absent findings, procedures not done), which standards developers (e.g., FHIR, CDA)can use to confirm that their specifications meet all requirements, demonstrate recommended patterns, and identify out-of-specification patterns.
    • 17/09/16 12:22 PM Jay Lyle
  • In order
    • 1. MnM and Vocabulary are already co-sponsors.
    • 2. "We would also appreciate a clearer description of the project scope statement": some changes have been made & clarification requested.
    • 3. CG would like to be included. We have biweekly meetings which have been posted on the HL7 listserv. All documentation is posted on the wiki.
      • CG is welcome to co-sponsor or be listed as an interested party if they would like.
    • 4. Reword to remove implication that design work will be performed: done.
    • 17/09/16 12:22 PM Jay Lyle
  • We recommend the Foundation and Technology Steering Division's work groups sponsor this project. Please consider MnM and Vocabulary. We would also appreciate a clearer description of the project scope statement.
    • 25/08/16 2:26 PM Laura Rappleye (PHER)
  • While CG has been invited for joint meetings at WGMs to discuss negation modeling, we would like to be include in discussion outside of WGMs since there are several members who could contribute but can't attend the WGM.
    • 23/08/16 11:23 AM Bob Milius (Clinical Genomics)
  • Could you please clarify the scope of the project. We would be interested in more details on what you are proposing. Thanks.
    • 19/08/16 12:02 PM Laura Rappleye (PHER)
  • This sentence from the "Project Scope" section may be interpreted as an implementation requirement, which is out of scope:
    • "Design solutions would be expected to support all classes--or to indicate any class not supported ...."
    • Suggest change: "Design solutions could employ this list by demonstrating how they support the classes--or indicating any class not supported--and articulating the correct pattern for representing each class. Conducting this design work is out of scope for this project"
    • 16/08/16 8:29 PM Stephen Chu - PCWG