Electronic+Address+Discovery+SWG+Meeting+Minutes+2011-07-14


 * Date**: July 14, 2011 12:00-1:30PM EDT
 * Name**: Provider Directories (PD) Initiative – Electronic Address Discovery SWG Meeting Session 5

Agenda/Objectives:

 * **Topic** || **Time Allotted** ||
 * Dataset Considerations of Query for Electronic Address Use Case || 85 minutes ||
 * Sprint Team Logistics/Next Steps || 5 minutes ||

Workgroup Attendees: John Moehrke, rao parvatam, lin wan, Gail Kocher, Erik Pupo, Peter Bachman, Chris Andreou, Michael Nelson, Ron Sawdey, Ken Pool, Ernest Grove, Lester Keepper, Kelly Conlin, Aleena Dhar, Ananya Gupta, Smriti Singal, Terri Skalabrin, Steve Witter, Daniel Kearney, Noam Arzt
 * Attendees:**

__Panelist Attendees:__ Bob Dieterle, Karen Witting, Virginia Riehl, Victoria Njoku


 * Action Items:**
 * **Date** || **Description** || **Status** || **Notes** ||
 * 7/14/11 || Review updated dataset considerations section and provide comments on Wiki || OPEN || SWG and Sprint Members ||

//Key Discussion Points://
 * Dataset Considerations**
 * The purpose of the dataset considerations was clarified to members as an outline of data elements that could be included in a query and response message.
 * The Use Case __will not__ include details about what data element is required or optional because that will be part of the development of the data model during the harmonization stage
 * The structure of the datasets was reviewed to outline the different section headings, associated data elements, and notes
 * A question was raised about including data elements related to provider-patient consent, but the group determined that as out of scope for the Use Case
 * In regards to using “entity,” the group discussed an issue with the clarity of its definition and an alternative preference to use “organization” instead to provide clarity
 * The group discussed the use of “Direct Address Object” as serving a grouping purpose but was uncertain whether to keep it
 * One feedback was that organizations should have a slot for Direct Address and digital certificates but another indicated that this will be dependent on the organization
 * The use of “Direct Address Object” provides the ability to have multiple named places; however, one argument raised was that it the discussion was more related to data modeling and should be deferred
 * Instead of using the term, the group concluded on changing it to “Direct Address (email address, certificate, recipient)
 * One general comment was made to keep notes of items to be discussed during harmonization and later stages.
 * In regards to keeping the data element “State license,” the group also saw a need to discuss this further during harmonization
 * One feedback was that multiple state licenses should be supported and reflected in the data element
 * The Provider Directory is only an informational source and does not replace federal databases that already track licensing and credentialing
 * The data element “State License” was amended to capture the state, issuing authority, type, and number
 * The set of data elements starting with “Contact” e.g. “Contact Individual Name,” “Contact Telephone,” was discussed to clarify its purpose and whether it needed revision
 * A “Contact” can be seen as someone who is not the main individual but works closely with that individual and can serve a point of contact
 * A suggestion was made to simply group data elements like Name, Telephone, Email, under one place in each appropriate section, indicate that it could have multiple values, and resolve it further during the harmonization stage
 * In general, a suggestion was made that discussion during harmonization must consider that all data elements may be returned as multiple values or more clearly as zero, one, or many values

//Resolution(s)://


 * “Entity” was replaced with “Organization” throughout the Use Case.
 * Organization was defined as “A legal entity or part of a legal entity engaged in healthcare related services”
 * “Direct Address Object” was changed to Direct Address (email address, certificate, recipient name) and a note was added to indicate this element depends on the data model and will be addressed during harmonization phase.
 * An appendix section (Appendix E) was created to keep track of topics/issues to be discussed during harmonization stage
 * “State License” was amended to State License (State, Issuing Authority, Type, Number)
 * The use of “Contact” in “Contact Individual Name,” “Contact Telephone Number,” etc., was eliminated and data elements like Name, Telephone Number, and Email were clarified as possibly having multiple values
 * A statement was added to Appendix E to indicate that “All data elements captured under Dataset Considerations (Section 12.0) may have zero, one, or many values” to replace the use of “*” that referred to the note that “items may have multiple occurrences”


 * Logistics and next steps:**


 * The remainder of the data elements for the return message will be discussed and refined at the next meeting.
 * Other sections of the Use Case will undergo revision to prepare for consensus