longitudinal coordination of care (lcc) workgroup (wg) hl7 tiger team patient care wg care plan dam...

Longitudinal Coordination of Care (LCC) Workgroup (WG)HL7 Tiger Team Patient Care WG Care Plan DAM

July 3, 2013

1

Meeting Etiquette

• Remember: If you are not speaking, please keep your phone on mute

• Do not put your phone on hold. If you need to take a call, hang up and dial in again when finished with your other call o Hold = Elevator Music = frustrated speakers and

participants• This meeting is being recorded

o Another reason to keep your phone on mute when not speaking

• Use the “Chat” feature for questions, comments and items you would like the moderator or other participants to know.o Send comments to All Participants so they can

be addressed publically in the chat, or discussed in the meeting (as appropriate).

From S&I Framework to Participants:Hi everyone: remember to keep your phone on mute

All Participants

3

• For this initiative:• Interoperable and shared patient assessments across

multiple disciplines

• Shared patient and team goals and desired outcomes

• Care plans which align, support and inform care delivery regardless of setting or service provider

• For this Tiger Team:• Alignment of HL7 artifacts with LCC artifacts to

support care plan exchange

• HL7 CCS provides Service Oriented Architecture

• Care Plan DAM provides informational structure

• LCC Implementation Guides provide functional requirements

Goals

Agenda

• Introductions

• Goals

• Schedule

• Discussion of Prioritizations

– Ongoing comments can be submitted and viewed on wiki:

• http://wiki.siframework.org/LCC+HL7+Tiger+Team+SWG

• Next Steps

4

Schedule – June/July 2013SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

11 AM ET: Discussion

Prioritization

9 10 11 12 13 14 1511 AM ET Meeting

Canceled

Tentative Presentation to

HL7 (TBD)

16 17 18 19 20 21 2211 AM ET HL7

Preference and Priority as shown

in DAM

23 24 25 26 27 28 2911 AM ET

Discussion Connections, Crosswalks

30 JULY 1 JULY 2 JULY 3 JULY 4 JULY 5 JULY 611 AM ET

Discussion Plan Activity Data

Element Attributes

Work Group SchedulesLCC WG

SWG Meeting LCC Leads Date/ Time Projects

LTPAC SWG Larry GarberTerry O'Malley

Weekly Mondays, 11-12pm EST

C-CDA: Transfer Summary, Consult Note, Referral Note

LCC HL7 Tiger Team

Russ Leftwich Weekly Wednesdays, 11- 12pm EST

LCC WG comments for HL7 Care Plan DAM

LCP SWG Bill RussellSue MitchellJennie Harvell

Weekly Thursdays 5-6pm EST

C-CDA: Care Plan, HomeHealth Plan of Care

HL7 WGSWG Meeting HL7 Lead Participating LCC

MembersDate/ Time Projects

HL7 Patient Care WG Russ LeftwichElaine Ayers Stephen Chu Michael Tan Kevin Coonan

Susan Campbell Laura H Langford Lindsey Hoggle

Bi-weekly Weds, 5 -6pm EST

Care Plan DAMCare Coordination Services (CSS)

HL7 Structured Documents WG

Bob DolinBrett Marquard

Sue MitchellJennie Harvell

Weekly Thursdays, 10-12pm EST

CDA (various)

HL7 SOA WG CCS Project Jon Farmer Enrique Meneses (facilitators) Stephen Chu

Susan Campbell Weekly Tuesdays 5 - 6pm EST

Care Coordination Services (CSS)

HL7 Patient Generated Document

Leslie Kelly Hall Weekly Fridays, 12-1pm EST

Patient-authored Clinical Documents

7

• Can data elements (each of health concern, goal, and intervention) be associated with zero care team members (other than the patient, who would be associated by default)?• In other words, zero to many team members associated

with the data element (0…* cardinality)• Can examples of this situation be provided?

• If there should be a team member associated with each of the data elements, the statement would be SHALL.

Tiger Team Discussion Points

8

• Can data Health Concern be associated with zero care team members (other than the patient, who would be associated by default)?• Can be zero: if patient is keeping his/her own care plan

and not sharing it (in personal health record) they would be sole member of care team, or where patient says it’s only my business and not yours—I want information there so that a healthcare proxy could be aware of it.

• Patient has hazardous occupation but no one else has an association with that (but this is a risk that’s a health concern, so the primary provider might list this as a concern)

• Fitness level that allows them to run Boston marathon (wellness concern) but not reasonably a requirement that other team members would have other than overarching goal to run in marathon

Health Concern to Team Member Cardinality

9

• Patient has concern that is not a “medical” condition that needs treatment (ex: nutritional concepts that have no medical basis)

• If patient has concerns (such as home cleanliness, compulsive cleansing, etc.) that other members of the care team don’t see as health concerns

• Pattern of utilization and nature of utilization goes on the care plan, not necessarily the condition itself (ex: not the bump, but rather the somatic/compulsivity issues would be addressed)

• Conclusion: in terms of model, Health Concern can be zero to many

• Recommended conformance: SHOULD

Health Concern to Team Member Cardinality

10

• Can Goal be associated with zero care team members (other than the patient, who would be associated by default)?• Conclusion on this is yes, since overarching goals are

patient’s goals (this would be a much more common occurrence than with health concern)• There will often be patient goals that would not be

associated with another care team member• Care team’s goals could be subject to negotiation• Definition would have to be within constraints of the

funding vehicle (ex: patient goal might be ambulation rather than fine motor dexterity, which is care team’s goal, and this would be recorded)

• There’s a difference between the strategic and the tactical issues

• Recommended conformance: SHOULD

Goal to Team Member Cardinality

11

• Can Intervention be associated with zero care team members (other than the patient, who would be associated by default)?• If it’s a self care issue it could be zero (self care meaning

requiring no reasonable instructions by the care team)• Conclusion: this can be zero cardinality• Recommended conformance: SHOULD

Intervention to Team Member Cardinality

12

• Would the patient be the only care team member associated with a health concern, goal, or intervention? • That is, beyond their default association with all, might

there be instances where they would be the only care team member associated with a data element and would have accountability for that element?

Intervention to Team Member Cardinality

13

• Establish attributes for Plan Activity• Pull elements from Health Concern and Goal as baseline• Include role(s): individual/organization• Include level(s) of association

Plan Activity Attributes Discussion

14

Care Plan DAM – Team Member View

class Team Members

Common::Patient

::Role+ address :Address+ identifier :Identifier [1..*]

Roles::CareGiv er


Roles::Prov ider


Roles::SupportingMember


Act

Plan

+ clinicalSpecialty :Code [0..*]+ completeDate :DateTime+ confidentiality :ConfidentialityType+ createDate :DateTime+ displayName :String+ effectiveDate :DateTime+ id :Identifier+ latestUpdateDate :DateTime+ planClass :PlanClassType+ version :String

A

ClinicalObjectReference

HealthConcern

+ description :Code+ effectiveTime :DateTime+ expressedBy :Role [1..*]+ priority :Priority [1..*]+ reason :ClinicalObjectReference [0..*]+ resolvedTime :DateTime HealthRisk

+ description :Code+ effectiveTime :DateTime+ levelOfRisk :LevelType+ observer :Role+ resolvedTime :DateTime

Activity

PlanActiv ity

::Activity+ applicabil ity :TimeRecord [0..1]+ classification :Code+ description :Code+ endDate :DateTime+ frequency :Frequency [0..1]+ functionalArea :Code [0..*]+ postcondition :Criterion [0..*]+ precondition :Criterion [0..*]+ priority :Priority+ startDate :DateTime+ supportiveContent

:ClinicalObjectReference [0..*]

Observation

HealthGoal

+ goal :Code+ milestoneGoal :HealthGoal [0..*] {ordered}+ narrative :String+ planStatus :ExecutionStatusType+ priority :Priority [1..*]+ successCriteria :Criterion [0..*]+ targetDate :DateTime::Observation+ applicabil ityTime :TimeRecord+ capturedTime :DateTime+ description :Code+ historical :Boolean [0..1] = false+ interpretation :Code [0..1]+ method :Code [0..1]+ targetSite :Code [0..1]

Activity

ImplementedActiv ity

::Activity+ applicabil ity :TimeRecord [0..1]+ classification :Code+ description :Code+ endDate :DateTime+ frequency :Frequency [0..1]+ functionalArea :Code [0..*]+ postcondition :Criterion [0..*]+ precondition :Criterion [0..*]+ priority :Priority+ startDate :DateTime+ supportiveContent :ClinicalObjectReference [0..*]

Common::Role

+ address :Address+ identifier :Identifier [1..*]

+concern

0..*

+goal

0..*

addressesConcern

+targetConcern 0..*

+presentingRisk

*

«participation»

+subject 1..* +familyCareGiver 0..*

«participation»

+proposedAction

1..*

+professionalCareTeam

1..*

«participation»

+presentingRisk

0..*

+presentingRisk

0..*

0..1

proposalExecution

1

+requiredPerformer 1..*{subsets performer}

«participation»

+nonfamilyCareGiver 0..*

+mitigatesRisk

0..*

+goalTarget

0..*

«participation»

+administrativeSupportMember

0..*

+implementedAction 0..*

15

Care Plan DAM – Health Concern

class Team Members

Common::Patient Roles::CareGiv erRoles::Prov ider Roles::SupportingMember

Act

Plan


A


HealthConcern

+ description :Code+ effectiveTime :DateTime+ expressedBy :Role [1..*]+ priority :Priority [1..*]+ reason :ClinicalObjectReference [0..*]+ resolvedTime :DateTime

HealthRisk


Activity

PlanActiv ity

Observation

HealthGoal

+ goal :Code+ milestoneGoal :HealthGoal [0..*] {ordered}+ narrative :String+ planStatus :ExecutionStatusType+ priority :Priority [1..*]+ successCriteria :Criterion [0..*]+ targetDate :DateTime

Activity


Common::Role


«participation»


0..*

«participation»



1..*

«participation»

+familyCareGiver 0..*

«participation»«participation»

+subject 1..*

+concern

0..*+presentingRisk

0..*

+presentingRisk

*

+mitigatesRisk

0..*

+presentingRisk

0..*

+proposedAction

1..*

+goalTarget 0..*

addressesConcern

+targetConcern 0..*

+goal

0..*

+implementedAction

0..*

0..1

proposalExecution1


Includes “expressed by” role but no association role(s)

16

Care Plan DAM – Goal

class Team Members

Common::Patient Roles::CareGiv erRoles::Prov ider Roles::SupportingMember

Act

Plan


A


HealthConcern

+ description :Code+ effectiveTime :DateTime+ expressedBy :Role [1..*]+ priority :Priority [1..*]+ reason :ClinicalObjectReference [0..*]+ resolvedTime :DateTime

HealthRisk


Activity

PlanActiv ity

Observation

HealthGoal

+ goal :Code+ milestoneGoal :HealthGoal [0..*] {ordered}+ narrative :String+ planStatus :ExecutionStatusType+ priority :Priority [1..*]+ successCriteria :Criterion [0..*]+ targetDate :DateTime

Activity


Common::Role


«participation»


0..*

«participation»



1..*

«participation»

+familyCareGiver 0..*

«participation»«participation»

+subject 1..*

+concern

0..*+presentingRisk

0..*

+presentingRisk

*

+mitigatesRisk

0..*

+presentingRisk

0..*

+proposedAction

1..*

+goalTarget 0..*

addressesConcern

+targetConcern 0..*

+goal

0..*

+implementedAction

0..*

0..1

proposalExecution1


Does not include any role(s) for expressed by or association

17

Care Plan DAM – Plan Activity (Intervention)

Does this need additional attributes? —need to define

class Team Members

Activity

PlanActiv ity

::Activity+ applicability :TimeRecord [0..1]+ classification :Code+ description :Code+ endDate :DateTime+ frequency :Frequency [0..1]+ functionalArea :Code [0..*]+ postcondition :Criterion [0..*]+ precondition :Criterion [0..*]+ priority :Priority+ startDate :DateTime+ supportiveContent

:ClinicalObjectReference [0..*]

18

Questions/Comments to PCWG

• Comment:

Proposed Next Steps

• Discussion for next week:• Next Touch Point meeting with PCWG is TBD (either July

10 or July 24, or both)• Update discussion schedule• Finalize LCC’s Comments by August 4, 2013 for

submittal as part of September Ballot

20

Contact Information

We’re here to help. Please contact us if you have questions, comments, or would like to join other projects.

• S&I Initiative Coordinator• Evelyn Gallego [email protected]

• Sub Work Group Lead• Russ Leftwich [email protected]

• Program Management• Lynette Elliott [email protected]• Becky Angeles [email protected]

21

Background Slides

22

3.4 Observation, Condition, Diagnosis, ConcernNOTE: The HL7 Patient Care Technical Committee is developing a formal model for

condition tracking. The examples provided here are greatly simplified so as to illustrate certain aspects of SNOMED CT implementation.

Observations, Conditions, Diagnoses, and Concerns are often confused, but in fact have distinct definitions and patterns.

"Observation" and "Condition": An HL7 observation is something noted and recorded as an isolated event, whereas an HL7 condition is an ongoing event. Symptoms and findings (also know as signs) are observations. The distinction between "seizure" and "epilepsy" or between "allergic reaction" and "allergy" is that the former is an observation, and the latter is a condition.

SNOMED CT distinguishes between "Clinical Findings" and "Diseases", where a SNOMED CT disease is a kind of SNOMED CT clinical finding that is necessarily abnormal:

[ 404684003 | Clinical finding ][ 64572001 | Disease ]

SNOMED IG Definitions

Continued on next slide

23

The SNOMED CT finding/disease distinction is orthogonal to the HL7 observation/condition distinction, thus a SNOMED CT finding or disease can be an HL7 observation or condition.

"Diagnosis": The term "diagnosis" has many clinical and administrative meanings in healthcare

A diagnosis is the result of a cognitive process whereby signs, symptoms, test results, and other relevant data are evaluated to determine the condition afflicting a patient.

A diagnosis often directs administrative and clinical workflow, where for instance the assertion of an admission diagnosis establishes care paths, order sets, etc.

A diagnosis is often something that is billed for in a clinical encounter. In such a scenario, an application typically has a defined context where the billable object gets entered.

"Concern": A concern is something that a clinician is particularly interested in and wants to track. It has important patient management use cases (e.g. health records often present the problem list or list of concerns as a way of summarizing a patient's medical history).

SNOMED IG Definitions, cont’d…


24

Differentiation of Observation, Condition, Diagnosis, and Concern in common patterns:

"Observation" and "Condition": The distinction between an HL7 Observation and HL7 Condition is made by setting the Act.classCode to "OBS" or "COND", respectively. The distinction between a SNOMED finding and SNOMED disease is based on the location of the concept in the SNOMED CT hierarchy. There is no flag in a clinical statement instance for distinguishing between a SNOMED CT finding vs. disease.

"Diagnosis":Result of a cognitive process: Could potentially be Indicated by post-coordinating a

SNOMED CT finding method attribute with a procedure such as "cognitive process".Directs administrative and clinical workflow: These use cases typically rely more on the

context in which the diagnoses are entered (e.g. where an order set has a field designated for the admission diagnosis). In such a case, the distinction of a (particular kind of) diagnosis is that it occurs within a particular organizer (e.g. a condition within an Admission Diagnosis section is an admission diagnosis from an administrative perspective).

Something that is billed for: The fact that something was billed for would be expressed in another HL7 message. There is nothing in the pattern for a diagnosis that says whether or not it was or can be billed for.



25

"Concern": The HL7 Patient Care Technical Committee is developing a formal model for condition tracking. In that model, a problem (which may be an Observation, a Procedure, or some other type of Act) is wrapped in an Act with a new Act.classCode “CONCERN”. The focus in this guide is on the use of SNOMED CT, whereas the Patient Care condition tracking model is the definitive source for the overall structure of a problem list.

It should be noted that the administrative representation of a diagnosis and the representation of a concern break the rules from section 3.1.1 Observations vs. Organizers, in that these designations are based on context, whereas the designation of something as an Observation vs. Condition is inherent in the clinical statement itself.


26

HL7 v3 SNOMED CT Definitions• 3.4 Observation, Condition, Diagnosis, Concern

• NOTE: The HL7 Patient Care Technical Committee is developing a formal model for condition tracking. The examples provided here are greatly simplified so as to illustrate certain aspects of SNOMED CT implementation.

• Observations, Conditions, Diagnoses, and Concerns are often confused, but in fact have distinct definitions and patterns.• "Observation" and "Condition": An HL7 observation is something noted

and recorded as an isolated event, whereas an HL7 condition is an ongoing event. Symptoms and findings (also know as signs) are observations. The distinction between "seizure" and "epilepsy" or between "allergic reaction" and "allergy" is that the former is an observation, and the latter is a condition.

• SNOMED CT distinguishes between "Clinical Findings" and "Diseases", where a SNOMED CT disease is a kind of SNOMED CT clinical finding that is necessarily abnormal:

• [ 404684003 | Clinical finding ]• [ 64572001 | Disease ]

27

HL7 v3 SNOMED CT Definitions, cont’d…• "Diagnosis": The term "diagnosis" has many clinical and

administrative meanings in healthcare• A diagnosis is the result of a cognitive process whereby signs,

symptoms, test results, and other relevant data are evaluated to determine the condition afflicting a patient.

• A diagnosis often directs administrative and clinical workflow, where for instance the assertion of an admission diagnosis establishes care paths, order sets, etc.

• A diagnosis is often something that is billed for in a clinical encounter. In such a scenario, an application typically has a defined context where the billable object gets entered.

• "Concern": A concern is something that a clinician is particularly interested in and wants to track. It has important patient management use cases (e.g. health records often present the problem list or list of concerns as a way of summarizing a patient's medical history).

28

HL7 v3 SNOMED CT Definitions, cont’d…• Differentiation of Observation, Condition, Diagnosis, and Concern in

common patterns:• "Observation" and "Condition": The distinction between an HL7

Observation and HL7 Condition is made by setting the Act.classCode to "OBS" or "COND", respectively. The distinction between a SNOMED finding and SNOMED disease is based on the location of the concept in the SNOMED CT hierarchy. There is no flag in a clinical statement instance for distinguishing between a SNOMED CT finding vs. disease.

• "Diagnosis":• Result of a cognitive process: Could potentially be Indicated by post-

coordinating a SNOMED CT finding method attribute with a procedure such as "cognitive process".

• Directs administrative and clinical workflow: These use cases typically rely more on the context in which the diagnoses are entered (e.g. where an order set has a field designated for the admission diagnosis). In such a case, the distinction of a (particular kind of) diagnosis is that it occurs within a particular organizer (e.g. a condition within an Admission Diagnosis section is an admission diagnosis from an administrative perspective).

29

HL7 v3 SNOMED CT Definitions, cont’d…

• Differentiation of Observation, Condition, Diagnosis, and Concern in common patterns:• "Observation" and "Condition": The distinction between an HL7 Observation

and HL7 Condition is made by setting the Act.classCode to "OBS" or "COND", respectively. The distinction between a SNOMED finding and SNOMED disease is based on the location of the concept in the SNOMED CT hierarchy. There is no flag in a clinical statement instance for distinguishing between a SNOMED CT finding vs. disease.

• "Diagnosis“: Result of a cognitive process: Could potentially be Indicated by post-coordinating a SNOMED CT finding method attribute with a procedure such as "cognitive process".

• Directs administrative and clinical workflow: These use cases typically rely more on the context in which the diagnoses are entered (e.g. where an order set has a field designated for the admission diagnosis). In such a case, the distinction of a (particular kind of) diagnosis is that it occurs within a particular organizer (e.g. a condition within an Admission Diagnosis section is an admission diagnosis from an administrative perspective).

• Something that is billed for: The fact that something was billed for would be expressed in another HL7 message. There is nothing in the pattern for a diagnosis that says whether or not it was or can be billed for.

30

HL7 v3 SNOMED CT Definitions, cont’d…

• "Concern": The HL7 Patient Care Technical Committee is developing a formal model for condition tracking. In that model, a problem (which may be an Observation, a Procedure, or some other type of Act) is wrapped in an Act with a new Act.classCode “CONCERN”. The focus in this guide is on the use of SNOMED CT, whereas the Patient Care condition tracking model is the definitive source for the overall structure of a problem list.• It should be noted that the administrative representation of a

diagnosis and the representation of a concern break the rules from section 3.1.1 Observations vs. Organizers, in that these designations are based on context, whereas the designation of something as an Observation vs. Condition is inherent in the clinical statement itself.

31

HL7 v3 SNOMED CT XML Examples: Clinical Finding

• Example 16. Assertion of a clinical finding<observation classCode="OBS" moodCode="EVN"> <code code="ASSERTION"

codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.5.4"/> <text>Headache</text> <value xsi:type="CD" code="25064002|Headache|"

codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.6.96"> <displayName value="Headache"/> </value></observation>

• The observation is asserting a clinical finding of "headache".

32

HL7 v3 SNOMED CT XML Examples: Diagnosis

• Example 17. Context-dependent (administrative) assertion of a diagnosis<act classCode="DOCSECT" moodCode="EVN"> <code code="8646-2" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.6.1"

codeSystemName="LOINC"/> <title>Hospital Admission Diagnosis</title> <text>Hospital admission diagnosis of headache</text> <actRelationship typeCode="COMP"> <observation classCode="OBS" moodCode="EVN"> <code code="ASSERTION" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.5.4"/> <value xsi:type="CD" code="25064002|Headache|"

codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.6.96"> <displayName="Headache"/> </value> </observation> </actRelationship></act>

• That a given diagnosis is, for instance, an Admission Diagnosis, can be asserted by wrapping the observation within a particular organizer.

33

HL7 v3 SNOMED CT XML Examples: Concerns

• Example 18. Example of a problem list containing concerns<act classCode="DOCSECT" moodCode="EVN"> <code code="11450-4" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.6.1"

codeSystemName="LOINC"/> <title>Problem List</title> <text> <list> <item>Headache</item> <item>Osteoarthritis of knee</item> </list> </text> <actRelationship typeCode="COMP"> <act classCode="CONCERN" moodCode="EVN"> <actRelationship typeCode="SUBJ"> <observation classCode="OBS" moodCode="EVN"> <code code="ASSERTION" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.5.4"/> <value xsi:type="CD" code="25064002|Headache|"

codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.6.96"> <displayName value="Headache"/> </value> </observation> </actRelationship> </act>

34

HL7 v3 SNOMED CT XML Examples: Concerns, cont’d…

</actRelationship> <actRelationship typeCode="COMP"> <act classCode="CONCERN" moodCode="EVN"> <actRelationship typeCode="SUBJ"> <observation classCode="OBS" moodCode="EVN"> <code code="ASSERTION" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.5.4"/> <value xsi:type="CD" code="239873007|Osteoarthritis of knee|"

codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.6.96"> <displayName value="Osteoarthritis of knee"/> </value> </observation> </actRelationship> </act> </actRelationship></act>.

• That a given clinical statement is a part of a condition tracking structure can be asserted by containing the clinical statement within the concern act, using the mechanism defined by the HL7 Patient Care Technical Committee, as shown here.

longitudinal coordination of care (lcc) workgroup (wg) hl7 tiger team patient care wg care plan dam...

Documents

care team members

care team dont

care delivery

sole member of care

team goals

care plan exchange hl7

team member cardinality

data health concern