LRI+Public+Health+WG+Meeting+Minutes+2011-06-01

include component="page" wikiName="siframework" page="LRI Header"
 * Date:** 06/01/11
 * Name:** LRI – Public Health Workgroup Meeting 6

Agenda/Objectives:

 * **Topic** || **Time Allotted** ||
 * Summary of Short Term Goals from 5/25 WG Meeting || 4:00-4:10 ||
 * Review of Public Health Reportable Lab Results Abbreviated Use Case || 4:10-4:35 ||
 * Review of Required (R, RE, C, CE) Data Elements from ELR Guide & ELR Usage Codes || 4:35-4:55 ||
 * Wrap Up || 4:55-5:00 ||

Attendees:
__Workgroup Attendees:__ Riki Merrick, Kathy Walsh, Bob Yencha, Virginia Sturmfels, Cindy Vinion, Natalie Menser, Smriti Singal, Xiaohui Zhang, Freida Hall, Rita Altamore, J. Michael Fitzmaurice (AHRQ), Kate Hamilton, Nikolay Lipskiy, Andrea Pitkus, John Ritter, Dave Shevlin, Nam Nguyen, Ken Gerlach, Kosta Makrodimitris

__Panelist Attendees:__ Riki Merrick, Merideth Vida, Ed Larsen, Erik Pupo

**Action Items:**

 * **Action Item** || **Status / Next Steps** || **Lead** || **Contributors** || **Due Date** ||
 * Complete meeting summary and post to Wiki || In Progress || Support Leads || n/a || 6/3/11 ||
 * Compile a suggestion for the definition of Public Health Agency to be included as part of the S&I Framework Glossary || In Progress || Kosta || n/a || 6/8/11 ||
 * Continue review of the abbreviated Use Case and provide feedback using the Wiki || In Progress || Workgroup Members || n/a || 6/8/11 ||
 * Make appropriate updates to abbreviated Use Case and post to the Wiki (including updates to Sequence and Use Case diagrams) || In Progress || Support Team || Modeling SMEs || 6/3/11 ||

Review of Public Health Reportable Lab Results Abbreviated Use Case:

 * Key Discussion Points: Introduction**
 * Through Kosta’s first comment, he explained that he believes CDA is also another document based flow that we should capture and also harmonize.
 * After discussing, the Workgroup members determined that this is out of the scope of the short term goal of this Sub-Workgroup. This might not be the right venue to display this information.
 * The short term goal is to look at the ELR guide and by June focus on making sure that what is stipulated within that document is taken into consideration in the Implementation Guide for the LRI initiative which is right now focusing on 2.5.1.
 * Kosta’s second comment introduced the idea of expanding the sections/revising the introductory sections (“use of strong identifiers for key information objects”, and “use of vocabulary standards”) to include Transport Standards, Content Exchange, Vocabulary Standard, and Privacy & Security. The group was divided on this issue.
 * Some members thought that it was okay to include these new items and simply introduce them even if they’re not included in the scope of this document.
 * Others didn’t feel like this was appropriate because of the lower level of detail that is being focused on in this effort. It did not make sense to this conglomerate to include a reference to information that will not be covered in more detail, and instead, regarded these extra items as assumptions for the Use Case Lite document.
 * The final decision was not to amend the document to include Kosta’s suggestions but instead, assume that those missing components are in place to begin with.
 * Resolution(s): Introduction**
 * There will be no discussion of CDA within this document within the short term suggestion that will be given to harmonization.
 * The list of key points to take into consideration will not be expanded at this time.


 * Key Discussion Points: User Story**
 * No extensive discussion was conducted around this section. The following edits were discussed and changes were made to the document accordingly:
 * The word “Provider” was changed to “Provider Organization” in the first sentence of the User Story (this discussion continued into the Actors and Roles table – please refer to that section in the Meeting Summary for more information).
 * The parenthetical clause, “(communicable, chronic, occupational & onocological)” was deleted from the User Story.
 * Resolution(s): User Story**
 * Updates were made to the document to reflect the changes suggested above.


 * Key Discussion Points: Actors and Roles**
 * A large part of the discussion in this section focused on changing the term “Provider”.
 * As noted by the S&I Framework support team, other parts of the Framework have used the term “Provider Organization” which by definition would encompass anything that is not a singular provider but just someone who provides care and uses an EHR. This would be general enough to encompass only eligible hospitals which are the only entities as of right now that are part of Stage 1 MU; however, it would not preclude from the addition of eligible providers that may come in Stage 2 and 3.
 * The debate revolved around naming the actor one of the following choices:
 * Provider Organization
 * Hospital Laboratory
 * Eligible Hospital, Eligible Provider
 * The majority voted that Provider Organization is the most appropriate term.
 * Other suggestions to the text included:
 * Remove the word “Inpatient” from Electronic Health Record System (EHR)
 * Add “Electronic” to “Public Health System”
 * Kosta left a comment on the Actor, “Public Health System”. He wanted more clarification on the exact definition of Public Health agency and whether this means a Federal or State agency (or other).
 * The workgroup determined that the actors and roles table isn’t the right venue to add in any text around a definition. Members decided that the Glossary would be the best place for this addition.
 * Kosta will work on a definition for Public Health agency and send it back to present back to the group next week.
 * Resolution(s): Actors and Roles**
 * The two actors are, Public Health Agency and Provider Organization. Both definitions of these terms will be included in the glossary and not in the Actors and Roles table.
 * All other updates to text are included in the document to reflect the suggestions listed above.


 * Key Discussion Points: Use Case Diagram**
 * No extensive discussion was conducted around the Use Case Diagram. The following update will be made to the document:
 * Change the diagram on the left to say, “Provider Organization”
 * Resolution(s): Use Case Diagram**
 * Updates were made to the document to reflect the changes suggested above.


 * Key Discussion Points: Scenario**
 * The review of this section focused on the Activity Diagram. A suggestion was made to change the beginning of the scenario so that it starts with receiving reportable laboratory result. In order to account for the chance that results might come from other labs that are not part of MU but that are part of LRI we should add in a trigger to cover both MU and external labs..
 * The end decision was to add a trigger point within the Scenario.
 * Resolution(s): Scenario**
 * A trigger point will be added the scenario section.


 * Wrap Up:**
 * Workgroup members should keep looking at abbreviated Use Case and giving feedback so that we can give the feedback to the Harmonization team.
 * The next meeting will be on June 8th from 4-5pm EDT.

include component="page" wikiName="siframework" page="space.template.inc_contentleft_end"