PSWG Meeting Agenda for January 30th

Hi Dr. Simkus,
Thank you for your feedback. From your message, I see that you have a specific interest in the Conditions and Procedures and there are items that you think would be useful to call out in the specifications. It would be helpful for the team and the PSWG members to understand the details of these items so that we can discuss them and determine how to address them. The PS-CA ballot cycle is currently open for submissions until February 14th. Following the 14th, all submission requests will be reviewed in the upcoming PSWG meetings to determine the disposition of each item.

I also took a quick look through the previous ballot submissions that you have provided and thought it may be helpful to know that we have passed along past ballot comments to CIHI to include in their analysis and development of the pan-Canadian Health Data Content Framework (pCHDCF). CIHI will be conducting public reviews of the pCHDCF over the next few months to solicit the kind of feedback you have provided (e.g., on Medications and Conditions). The pCHDCF content will be incorporated into the next major release of the PS-CA v2.0.0.

The PS-CA v1.1.0 DFT-Ballot is a minor released focused on assessing the fields that were MS in IPS and supported by the majority of systems.
If you have additional comments to share for PS-CA v1.1.0, we would be happy to receive them. And, if you are not sure how to get connected in the review cycles of the pCHDCF and would like to, please let us know and we can connect you with that team.


Thanks again for taking the time to provide your feedback and we look forward to receiving more details.
Allana

I am particularly interested in the specifications related to Conditions and Procedures. I was not able to find any mention of a few items that I feel would be very useful. I was disappointed in the many comments alluding to the lack of various data elements in some applications. I thought that 'standards' were supposed to be forward looking and not just a recitation of existing practices. Standards that are being developed could provide vendors with a roadmap for well designed applications. Sadly vendors seem to be not interested in well drafted specifications and would rather develop applicaitons that are loosely designed. As a result interoperability is not going to happen and providers will continue to be stuck with a lot of manual data entry and wasted time. These feelings are echoed by many providers and informatics experts and they are not just my person opinions.

Good afternoon, Patient Summary Working Group,
We have an interesting agenda lined up for the next PSWG meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 30 at 1PM ET. We invite you to check out the agenda, add the event to your calendar, and perhaps invite anyone else from your organization who may be interested in participating in these discussions.

Agenda:

• Announcements and status of the ballot process for the PS-CA and CA:FeX
• Implementation considerations for the Attester data element. We’ll look at several implementation choices currently being considered within the jurisdictions and then open the floor for discussion to learn what you feel are the potential positive and negative impacts of allowing different implementation options. And gather your input on how to address these differences in the PS-CA.
• Dr. Rashaad Bhyat will share the importance of clinical use case development and provide an overview of the Patient Summary clinical use cases being discussed across the country with a view of a sample clinical scenario.
• Closing with a look at the work in progress and some innovative tech ideas for the Patient Summary.

Hope to see you there,
Allana, on behalf of the Interoperability Team