Tag Archives: hl7

IHE Patient Care Coordination – Past, Present, and Future: Part III

The Future!

This is the third post in a series on the past, present and future of the IHE PCC domain. So what’s next? Lots of stuff! At our face to face meeting this past summer we held a strategy meeting to discuss what we are doing with our domain as we were in a place of needing such clarification. The results of that two or so hour long session were new vision and mission statements, and a set of shiny new strategic goals for our domain.

Vision

The vision of PCC is to continually improve patient outcomes through the use of technology connecting patients and their care providers across healthcare disciplines and care paths.

Mission

The mission of PCC is to develop and maintain interoperability profiles to support coordination of care for patients where care crosses providers, patient conditions and health concerns, or time.

Strategic Goals

The strategic goals of PCC, which are 3–5 years in length, are to focus on content, workflow and nursing.. These three goals originate out of the work we have been focused on for the past several years and so they are not new concepts to us. However we felt it important to document specifics items around these goals to ensure our path forward is clear.

Content

PCC has had such a heavy focus on content over its lifetime, and naturally content standards and implementation guidance is changing along with the landscape of HIT. HL7 has recently produced the Consolidated CDA implementation guide, which directly competes with PCC content profiles. I am not convinced this was entirely intentional on HL7’s part, as the implementation guide itself is actually quite good and there are even a few references to PCC content templates within it. To be more specific, C-CDA replaces the family of HITSP implementation guides that all sit on top of PCC content templates, but C-CDA also has breaking changes to the existing PCC templates, and at the current time is US realm only. This last bit is a big challenge for many non-US implementers, and the reason why adoption and uptake of C-CDA has been primarily US focused vendors. Due to these recent events around content PCC feels that it should be proactive and engaged with HL7 to ensure that the responsibility to create and maintain content templates is shared between the two organizations.

So what roles do each play as it relates to content? I believe HL7 should continue to play the role of providing the framework aspect of content with a bit of guidance based on healthcare domain, so they would own how any given CDA section and CDA entry should be structured with minimal guidance on implementation details of those templates. PCC would own the more specific implementations of those artefacts based on specific clinical use cases. This would include extensions to the schema, value sets and optionality. This makes sense as HL7 has a lot of experience with vetting standards to ensure they are broadly adoptable, and IHE has a lot of experience working with stakeholders from a variety of medical disciplines and has a great process already in place (Connectathons) to test profiles.

Workflow

Workflow has long been a focus of PCC but really only in piecemeal, which is the same approach many other IHE domains follow. By piecemeal I mean more focused inwardly on solving a clinical use cases that have been brought to our domain rather than taking a cross-domain approach. Yes we do have a few profiles that have crossed into other domains, but by and large we author those profiles within PCC and have not always actively engaged other domains in our efforts. I believe PCC is well positioned to expand outside of our domain and across to other IHE domains to bring together workflows that are realized in the real world but have yet to be well represented in the interoperability profiling space.

PCC has received several profile proposals this year (four to be exact) that came from other IHE domains. Those domains are Radiology and Patient Care Devices. So you can imagine our delight of this news after our recent strategy sessions which concluded this exact effort is something we should be working on. It seems to be confirmation in every way that we are moving in the right direction.

Nursing

The Nursing Sub-committee of PCC was established in 2008 and has had decent participation over the years, however the uptake of work produced from this sector of PCC has not been strong. I believe this is primarily because the content profiles we have produced easily apply to both nursing and clinician/physician based content. The difference however, is primarily in the workflows, and workflow also happens to be one of our strategic goals. We have learned that nursing workflows are often times vastly different from their counterpart clinician/physician workflows. And so we are presented with an opportunity to provide better guidance in this space.

In Closing

Overall PCC is in a great place right now, on the cusp of exploring new opportunities as the world of HIT and interoperability continues to mature and change. If you are interested in getting involved check out our wiki page here.

IHE Patient Care Coordination – Past, Present, and Future: Part II

The Present

Today the PCC domain is in a place of discovering where it is we are going next. We have published a few dozen profiles over the past several years, many of which are content focused, but some of which also cover integration and workflow. As the HIT interoperability landscape evolves PCC must continually assess the work it is producing for validity in the marketplace. Specifically with the advent of HL7’s Consolidated CDA implementation guide we now have duplicate templates and a split in the market. PCC has many international stakeholders that continue to reference our templates, however most US based systems are focused first on C-CDA as it is core to the interoperability components of Meaningful Use Stage 2 compliance.

So how are we figuring this out? We are talking amongst ourselves first and foremost to better understand what our vision and mission is, what our core values are so we stay true to our purpose and role within IHE and the industry. Secondly we are talking with external organizations to ensure we align and/or harmonize our work efforts as appropriate, lest we find ourselves suffering from the Ostrich Effect.

To provide a little background (and expand on my previous post) we have created and published a total of 23 content profiles, 7 integration profiles, and 5 workflow profiles since 2005. This year we are publishing two profiles, one of which is new, the other is a re-write/update, and also a white paper. Our profiles are Multiple Content Views (MCV) and Reconciliation of Clinical Content and Care Providers (RECON). Our white paper is A Data Access Framework using IHE Profiles (DAF).

MCV provides guidance on how text in CDA documents may be tagged to achieve different rendering behaviors. For example, a patient does not necessarily need or want to see all of the details of their lab results, they may just want to simply know if the results are “good” or “bad.” MCV provides a mechanism upon which data can be presented to meet this requirement. However, in no way does MCV change, remove or exclude data from the CDA document itself – it is still intact, in the narrative text and/or in the structured entries. MCV is really focused only on rendering of the data, and the narrative text in CDA documents is what is primarily leveraged to achieve this end.

RECON was originally published in 2011, focusing on problems, medications, and allergies sections. Upon further assessment last year it was determined that we needed to make two adjustments to the existing RECON profile : provide an easier implementation path and expand to include additional sections of data. RECON is important to patient safety to ensure that the right data is available to the right person at the right time. Without reconciliation in any given clinical workflow pertinant data may exist across multiple documents or locations in the system and the care provider may not have time to find that data, and assemble in a way that is meaningful for appropriate care of the patient. For more detail see the use cases outlined in the RECON profile. This is especially true in an emergency situation where time is of the utmost importance.

The DAF white paper describes a framework by which IHE profiles can support multiple means of access through substitutable modules (IHE profiles). This work effort was brought to IHE via the US ONC, and is not so much an attempt to map out implementation guidance, but to explore how various IHE profiles could be implemented to create successful interoperability scenarios, based on various use cases and business requirements. This effort utilized a few different enterprise architecture frameworks to assist including:

We covered these new profiles, as well as other PCC topics on our annual domain update webinar this week. This webinar was recorded and will be available online soon at http://ihe.net/webinars/.

If you look at our work this year as well as last year you will see a pattern emerging that our focus is shifting away from straight templating of content, and more toward how that content is used in various systems and situations. I see this as a natural next step in the evolution of content-based standards. However our templates are still quite important to many non-US based stakeholders, and so IHE and HL7 are working together at the executive leadership level to resolve the issues around duplication of templates that exist today. My sincerest hope is that IHE PCC is able to remain in the content template guidance space as it is vitally important to working through content requirements for a number of international stakeholders.