Transcript Slide 1

NOTES:
Action items can be found on slide 27
This document will be updated and polished over a few meetings.
Care Plan Team Meeting
(As updated during meeting)
André Boudreau ([email protected])
Laura Heermann Langford ([email protected])
2011-02-09 (1)
HL7 Patient Care Work group
Participants- Meetg of 2011-02-09
Name
email
Count
ry
Yes
No
André Boudreau
[email protected]
CA
Yes
Laura Heermann Langford
[email protected]
US
Yes
Stephen Chu
[email protected]
AU
No
Peter MacIsaac
[email protected]
AU
No
David Rowed
[email protected]
AU
No
Adel Ghlamallah
[email protected]
CA
William Goossen
[email protected]
NL
No
Anneke Goossen
[email protected]
NL
No
Ian Townsend
[email protected]
UK
No
Charlie Bishop
[email protected]
UK
No
Rosemary Kennedy
[email protected]
u
US
Jay Lyle
[email protected]
US
Margaret Dittloff
[email protected]
US
Yes
Walter Suarez
[email protected]
US
Yes
Peter Hendler
[email protected]
US
yes
Ray Simkus
[email protected]
CA
Yes
Audrey Dickerson
[email protected]
US
Yes
Ian McNicoll
[email protected]
UK
Yes
Notes
Yes
Yes
No
Page 2
Participants- Profile notes - 1
Name
Count
ry
Organization
Notes
André Boudreau
CA
Boroan Inc. (Consulting)
Chair, Individual Care SCWG No. 2 (pan Canadian Standards
Collaborative Working Group); project manager – standards
projects; HL7 EHR and PHR WG
Laura Heermann
Langford
US
Intermountain
Healthcare
RN PhD,: Nursing Informatics; Emergency Informatics Association,
American Medical Informatics Association; IHE
Stephen Chu
AU
NEHTA-National eHealth
Transition Authority
Lead Clinical Information Architect ; co-chair HL7 Patient care WG;
vice-chair HL7 NZ
Peter MacIsaac
AU
HP Enterprise Services
MD; Clinical Informatics Consultant; IHE Australia; Medical
Practitioner - General Practice
David Rowed
AU
Family medicine practice
MD;
Adel Ghlamallah
CA
Canada Health Infoway
SME at Infoway (shared health record); past architect on EMR
projects
William Goossen
NL
Results 4 Care B.V
RN, PhD; -chair HL7 Patient Care WG at HL7; Detailed Clinical
Models ISO TC 215 WG1 and HL7 ; nursing practicioner
Anneke Goossen
NL
Results 4 Care B.V
RN; Consultant; Co-Chair Technical Committee EHR at HL7
Netherlands; Member at IMIA NI; Member of the Patient Care
Working Group at HL7 International
Ian Townend
UK
NHS Connecting for
Health
Health Informatics; Senior Interoperability Developer, Data
Standards and Products; HL7 Patient Care Co-Chair
Page 3
Participants- Profile notes - 2
Name
Charlie Bishop
Count
ry
Organization
Notes
UK
iSOFT
Product Manager - Information & Integration ; HL7 Patient care WG
Rosemary Kennedy
US
Thomas Jefferson
University School of
Nursing
RN; Informatics; Associate Professor; HL7 EHR WG; HL7 Patient
care WG; terminology engine for Plan of care;
Jay Lyle
US
JP Systems
Informatics Consultant; Business Consultant & Sr. Project Manager
Margaret Dittloff
US
The CBORD Group, Inc.
RD (Registered Dietitian); Product Manager, Nutrition Service Suite;
HL7 DAM project for diet/nutrition orders; American Dietetic
Association
Walter Suarez
US
Kaiser Permanente
MD, MPH; Director of Health IT Strategy; national priority for
transition of care; WEDI- Workgroup for Electronic Data Interchange
Peter Hendler
US
Kaiser Permanente
MD; informatics; lead in KP convergent terminology; SNOMED CT
Ray Simkus
CA
Brookswood Family
Practice
MD; Family medicine; EMR user; active meber various standards
WG in Canada; on IHTSDO Contents Committee
Audrey Dickerson
US
HIMSS
RN, MS; Standards Initiatives at HIMSS; ISO/TC 215 Health
Informatics, Secretary; US TAG for ISO/TC 215 Health Informatics,
Administrator; Co-Chair of Nursing Sub-committee to IHE-Patient
Care Coordination Domain.
Ian McNicoll
UK
Ocean Informatics
Health informatics specialist; Formal general medical practitioner;
OpenEHR; Slovakia Pediatrics EMR; Sweden distributed care
approach
Page 4
Meeting(s) Objectives
•
•
•
•
•
Agree on where we are and where we want to go
Agree on the approach to get there
Identify what is available and what is missing
Identify tasks and develop realistic work plan
Agree on roles and mechanics
Page 5
Agenda – (multiple meetings)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Welcome and roll call
Objectives of the meeting
Care plan status update
Objectives of this phase
Methodology to be followed
What has been done
Gaps
Team and roles
Conclusion
 Next steps
 Next meetings
Page 6
CARE PLAN STATUS UPDATE
Page 7
Where we are
• We have a Care Plan DSTU
• We have an approved March 2010 Project Scope Statement
 Questions were raised and discussed regarding development
processes, artefacts to be created and the types of ballots
• Use cases and storyboards have been collected
 Some are on the wiki and HL7 PC WG page
 Not standardized, not reviewed
 More would be available
o Canada (Blueprint 2015)
• We have details on the methodology (see later)
• Ask William Goossen for more details (add on next page)
Page 8
Where we are (William?)
Page 9
Notes from Jay Lile – 2011-02-03
1. INFORMATION: The DAM should inform a constrained model (DIM/DMIM/RMIM), which is
then used as the basis for specifications (CDA, message, etc.). If we build a DAM, we'll
presumably use it to update the Care Provision DIM. The updated DIM should be in the
list of balloted deliverables. (This is much clearer in PSS 4d, but the sections should be
in harmony.)
2. SCOPE ISSUE: We will also need to determine whether the DAM scope should be
restricted to the care plan or should reverse-engineer the entire Care Provision DIM.
3. PSS (Project Scope Statement) UPDATE: The Scope section (4a) discusses semantic
scope, but it does not lay out the scope of work. I'd suggest that the text currently in 2a
be removed from 2a, expanded, and added to 4a.
4. GUIDELINE: The term "DSTU" is being used to refer to deliverables. I find that
confusing: DSTU is a status, not an artifact. It would be clearer to me if artifacts were
referred to as messages, cda documents, DAMs, and DIMs, and ballot status were used
to modify those artifacts. E.g., "the purpose of this project is to develop a Care Plan CDA
document, with all necessary antecedent artifacts [list them], and to ballot this
document as DSTU."
5. DELIVERABLES: Modeling the information space will almost certainly be useful, but I'm
still in the dark about the use cases. Under what circumstances is it necessary to
communicate a care plan? For what business purpose are organizations paying their
employees to volunteer and develop this standard?
6. PSS UPDATE: External collaboration (6) could use more detail. That would also make it
less necessary to mention this slightly distracting information in previous sections.
Page 10
WHERE WE WANT TO BE (TARGET)
Page 11
Objectives of this phase
• Get more familiar with HL7 chain of deliverables (HDF)
• Consolidate and clarify business and clinical requirements
 Under what circumstances is it necessary to communicate a care
plan?
 Include clinical guidelines
 Distributed care planning as in Sweden: meta data needed
 For what business purpose are organizations paying their
employees to volunteer and develop this standard?
• Scope: decide whether the DAM scope should be restricted to
the care plan or should reverse-engineer the entire Care
Provision DIM
• Assemble use cases and analyze
• ?Develop DAM
• Update objectives once we have a better handle on our
methods
Page 12
Deliverables (to be updated after a few
weeks of travel…)
• NB: Care Plan wiki to be used for all documents
 Laura and André to manage?
• See HDF Domain Analysis- later
• Project Scope Statement
 Eventually…
• DAM
 storyboard, use cases, structural models, dynamic models
• Care Plan CDA?
• Care Plan v3 message?
Page 13
METHODOLOGY: HOW TO GET THERE
Page 14
Guidelines
• Use approved HL7 methods: HDF- DAP
 All agree
• We need to familiarize ourselves with the approach
• Resources
 HDF_1.5.doc (Jan 2010)
 CIC DAM Development Guide HL7 PC Cambridge 2010.pptx
 Format for use cases, storyboards, activity diagrams and
interaction diagrams - HL7Wiki.mht
• Examples
 EMS Domain Analysis Model VOORBEELD.pdf
Page 15
HDF- Domain Analysis Overview
act 3: Domain Analysis Ov erv iew
Business
Requirements
Source: HDF_1.5.doc, page 37
Project
Approved
Analyze Use
Cases
Analyze Business
Context
(from 3.4.2 Use Case Analysis)
«outcome»
(from 3.4.1 Business Context Analysis)
«outcome»
Use Case Analysis
Story board
(from 3.7 Artifacts)
(from 3.7 Artifacts)
Analyze Process Flow
(from 3.4.3 Process Analysis)
Process Flow
(from 3.7 Artifacts)
Glossary
Analyze Information Exchanged
(from 3.7 Artifacts)
(from 3.4.4 Information Analysis)
Information Model (Analysis)
(from 3.7 Artifacts)
Analyze Business Rules
«optional»
Business Rules Description
(from 3.4.5 Business Rules Analysis)
(from 3.7 Artifacts)
Business Trigger Analysis
(from 3.7 Artifacts)
Publish DAM
DAM Approv al
Page 16
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE
Page 17
What do we have (assets)
•
•
•
•
Approved PSS that needs revision when we are ready
Use cases and storyboards (next page)
Glossaries: HL7, EHR WG
CEN Continuity of care P1 and P2
 CEN docs are published
 Information model and processes and workflow
•
•
•
•
Care plan DSTU of 2007
IHE models of the PPOC (Patient Plan of Care)
To be updated with a good inventory (see next page)
NB: we need all the assets in one location (or at least links to
other locations would be found in that spot)
Page 18
Use Cases and Storyboards on Hand
•
•
•
•
•
•
Care Plan Storyboards - HL7Wiki.mht
Care Plan Use cases - HL7Wiki.mht
CarePlanPneumoniaStoryboard.doc
Goossenetal2004Jamia-nursingprocessHL7-186.pdf
Care coordination usecases v-9 IHE Australia.doc
CarePlanTopicUseCasesDiabetesCare22-112010.doc
• IHE-PCC_ProfileProposal_Chronic_Care_Coordination-1-AU.doc
• To be updated
Page 19
GAPS AND WORKPLAN
Page 20
Gaps
Page 21
Workplan
• High level here, comprehensive on Excel
• There was a work plan
 PC CarePlanTopic Planning & Controllist_v02.xls
Page 22
TEAM AND ROLES
Page 23
Team and Roles (WIP)
Name
email
Role
André Boudreau
CA
[email protected]
CP Co-Lead
Laura Heermann
Langford
US
[email protected]
CP Co-Lead
Stephen Chu
AU
Peter MacIsaac
AU
David Rowed
AU
Adel Ghlamallah
CA
William Goossen
NL
Anneke Goossen
NL
Ian Townsend
UK
Charlie Bishop
UK
Rosemary Kennedy
US
Jay Lyle
US
Notes
WG Co-Chair
WG Co-Chair, DCM
ETC. To be augmented
Page 24
Team and Roles- Notes
• Resource issue - the need to fill the roles of HL7
modeling and vocab facilitators to progress the
works
Page 25
CONCLUSION
Page 26
Concluding notes
• Approach is OK
• Have 1 or 2 or 3 more calls to sort ourselves out
• Weekly calls at 17h00 ET
Page 27
Issues/Questions as of 2011-02-09
No.
Date
Issue Name
Comments
Owner
Status
1
2
3
4
Page 28
Action Items as of 2011-02-09
No.
Action Items
By Whom
1.
Clarify procedure and obtain rights for André/Laura to update CP wiki
William?
2.
Do an inventory of use cases and storyboard on hand
Laura
(student)
3.
Ask William for an update (add in a diff colour to the appropriate pages)
André
4
Prepare summary of the steps from HDF to produce the DAM
André
5
Obtain and share the published version of the CEN Continuity of care P1 and P2
Audrey
For When
Done
Page 29