eReferral Spec Development work stream
- Tim Berezny
- Offline
- Posts: 84
3 years 11 months ago #6513
by Tim Berezny
Replied by Tim Berezny on topic eReferral Spec Development work stream
Notes for WG Meeting 2020-12-08
====================
Next Meeting Jan 5th 2021
The main topic of the meeting was a revised design of eReferral event codes.
We evaluated the BSeR state flow diagram found here (and its associated table): hl7.org/fhir/us/bser/2019May/BSeRMessagingWorkflow.html
Also, there is a previously worked on document for revising event codes that can be found here:
docs.google.com/document/d/16a41JBVSC9DAqjhE657QvQl1kfEpXOnf7L1hQoAkYHI/edit?usp=sharing
OBSERVATIONS:
- Do we need rows 15 and 17 for fail, or should it be possible to “fail” from anywhere? Semantically what do we mean by fail - clinical vs process vs technical failure? This language needs to be made clear
- Be more rigid on “Terminal” states
- Generally we should follow the Task states, but create some standard businessStatus states
PROCESSES TO TEST AGAINST
- Splitting of a referral (at a central intake) - Need a way to “notify” the requester that there is a new sericeRequest created based on their previous referral
- Request for information: In this diagram, needs to go via “Rejected”, but this isn’t truly a rejected state, which should be considered “terminal”. - Consider adding an RFI or “revise” state… or business statuses to “Rejected” where it does not act as a terminal state, which it is waiting to be accepted or rejected.
QUESTIONS:
- What is the purpose of “Modified (Ask the author)
docs.google.com/document/d/16a41JBVSC9DAqjhE657QvQl1kfEpXOnf7L1hQoAkYHI/edit?usp=sharing
====================
Next Meeting Jan 5th 2021
The main topic of the meeting was a revised design of eReferral event codes.
We evaluated the BSeR state flow diagram found here (and its associated table): hl7.org/fhir/us/bser/2019May/BSeRMessagingWorkflow.html
Also, there is a previously worked on document for revising event codes that can be found here:
docs.google.com/document/d/16a41JBVSC9DAqjhE657QvQl1kfEpXOnf7L1hQoAkYHI/edit?usp=sharing
OBSERVATIONS:
- Do we need rows 15 and 17 for fail, or should it be possible to “fail” from anywhere? Semantically what do we mean by fail - clinical vs process vs technical failure? This language needs to be made clear
- Be more rigid on “Terminal” states
- Generally we should follow the Task states, but create some standard businessStatus states
PROCESSES TO TEST AGAINST
- Splitting of a referral (at a central intake) - Need a way to “notify” the requester that there is a new sericeRequest created based on their previous referral
- Request for information: In this diagram, needs to go via “Rejected”, but this isn’t truly a rejected state, which should be considered “terminal”. - Consider adding an RFI or “revise” state… or business statuses to “Rejected” where it does not act as a terminal state, which it is waiting to be accepted or rejected.
QUESTIONS:
- What is the purpose of “Modified (Ask the author)
docs.google.com/document/d/16a41JBVSC9DAqjhE657QvQl1kfEpXOnf7L1hQoAkYHI/edit?usp=sharing
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Tim Berezny
- Offline
- Posts: 84
3 years 11 months ago #6478
by Tim Berezny
Replied by Tim Berezny on topic eReferral Spec Development work stream
Note: The eReferral WG meetings have moved from biweekly to monthly, with the next meeting in December.
You can see the updated schedule here:
infocentral.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/monthly-calendar/month.calendar/2020/11/24/1268
-Tim Berezny, CTO Caredove | This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
You can see the updated schedule here:
infocentral.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/monthly-calendar/month.calendar/2020/11/24/1268
-Tim Berezny, CTO Caredove | This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Geoff Ramsay
- Offline
- Posts: 2
4 years 1 week ago #6444
by Geoff Ramsay
Replied by Geoff Ramsay on topic eReferral Spec Development work stream
Thanks Ted, Radhika!
Notes from WG Meeting 2020-11-10
ATTENDEES
Tim Berezny (CareDove),
Radhika Verma (Ontario Health),
Geoff Ramsay (Think Research)
AGENDA
Proposal to move to monthly meetings
Discuss previous thinking on Task Statuses
DISCUSSION NOTES
New admin processes and needs
Move to Monthly meetings (no active development on standard right now)
Review of previous thinking on expanded Task statuses
Proposed Thinking:
docs.google.com/document/d/16a41JBVSC9DAqjhE657QvQl1kfEpXOnf7L1hQoAkYHI/edit
Review US eReferral work:
hl7.org/fhir/us/bser/WorkflowManagementResources.html
Conceptually:
Discussion - Viewlets
NEXT MONTH’S AGENDA ITEMS
Event Code discussion
Notes from WG Meeting 2020-11-10
ATTENDEES
Tim Berezny (CareDove),
Radhika Verma (Ontario Health),
Geoff Ramsay (Think Research)
AGENDA
Proposal to move to monthly meetings
Discuss previous thinking on Task Statuses
DISCUSSION NOTES
New admin processes and needs
Move to Monthly meetings (no active development on standard right now)
Review of previous thinking on expanded Task statuses
Proposed Thinking:
docs.google.com/document/d/16a41JBVSC9DAqjhE657QvQl1kfEpXOnf7L1hQoAkYHI/edit
Review US eReferral work:
hl7.org/fhir/us/bser/WorkflowManagementResources.html
Conceptually:
- ServiceRequest -> Request to transfer care
- Requested, Acked, Cancelled, Complete...
- Task -> Tracks the workflow of processing a referral
- All other steps during processing
- Event-Code -> Instruction for the receiving system to process a specific action
Discussion - Viewlets
- Review of Viewlets iGuide opens next week.
- Radhika authored the Simplifier
- Allows for 2-way context sharing between apps
- Potentially an interesting investigation as an alternative to the current SoFish approach used in eReferrals
NEXT MONTH’S AGENDA ITEMS
Event Code discussion
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Radhika Verma
- Offline
- Posts: 15
4 years 1 week ago #6443
by Radhika Verma
Replied by Radhika Verma on topic eReferral Spec Development work stream
I would like to participate!
Thank you!
Thank you!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Ted Jin
- Offline
- Posts: 1
4 years 1 week ago #6442
by Ted Jin
Replied by Ted Jin on topic eReferral Spec Development work stream
Please count me in. Thanks.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Geoff Ramsay
- Offline
- Posts: 2
4 years 1 week ago #6441
by Geoff Ramsay
Replied by Geoff Ramsay on topic eReferral Spec Development work stream
Hi Folks!
In Tuesday's Working Group meeting we discussed message header event-codes used to identify the intent of an eReferral bundle. The (limited) attending group recognised that this is an area that's still quite ambiguously defined, and that could use some focus and further refinement.
The attending group proposed an out-of-band discussion for interested parties.
If you're reading this, and would like to participate, please respond, or message/email me or Tim directly!
Proposed agenda of that (ideally 2 hour) side-chat:
In Tuesday's Working Group meeting we discussed message header event-codes used to identify the intent of an eReferral bundle. The (limited) attending group recognised that this is an area that's still quite ambiguously defined, and that could use some focus and further refinement.
The attending group proposed an out-of-band discussion for interested parties.
If you're reading this, and would like to participate, please respond, or message/email me or Tim directly!
Proposed agenda of that (ideally 2 hour) side-chat:
- Review existing event codes and intended use.
- Review proposed event codes representing sub-events and new events
- Plan for formalization and presentation to the Working Group for feedback
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.