Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
Status

DENIED

e-Vote Close Date

 

Affirm-Negative-Abstain2-6-2
Date Approved

N/A

Work GroupPatient Care
Project Insight ID1618
Work Groups that submitted votes

BR&R

CDS

Clinical Genomics

CIC

CQI

Emergency Care

LHS

Patient Care

Pharmacy

Public Health

Work Groups that did not submit votes

Anesthesia

CBCP

Health Care Devices



  • For each Work Group, choose Affirmative, Negative, Abstain

  • If you are voting for a WG AND are also a co-chair for another WG in the CSD, please include a comment to indicate which WG you are voting on behalf of.

  • Use the  in the comments section to add comments to the vote.

  • Feel free to comment inline on Confluence documents*.

  • Negatives that do NOT have a comment will be considered abstain. Please register your vote below.

PSS: Multiple Chronic Conditions Dynamic Electronic Care Plan FHIR IG


eVote Closes:  

Link to PSS: Multiple Chronic Conditions Dynamic Electronic Care Plan FHIR IG

PBS Metrics: Red - publication request has been submitted as of 2020-04-13 for IG that will fix this WG health metric

Project Approval Request

Choices Your Vote Current Result: (10 Total Votes) Comments
abstain Project Approval Request
2 Votes , 20%
negative: Russ Leftwich (LHS) Item 1. under Project Scope refers to "EHRs and related systems". There are two issues with this item. First, "related systems" has no commonly recognized meaning and is ambiguous. Second, and likely more important, it is clear that the coordination an d management of individuals with chronic conditions of any complexity is made difficult but the difficulty accessing data in systems that are in various care settings that are not related to the traditional healthcare settings where EHRs are implemented. Also important and related, is that many care team members ranging from family members to community services to healthcare professionals outside traditional settings have no access to existing EHR systems nor the ability to contribute to the information in those systems. It seems apparent that any care plan expected to improve the management and coordination of care for individuals with MCC and improve their outcomes must enable the entire care team and all of the systems used by those care team members.
affirmative: See comment box for detals
negative: Lindsey Hoggle, voting for CIC: Recommend considering the continued evolution of FHIR as well as the CMS/ONC regulations over the 3 year time of the project. In addition, there is no reference to Provider Directory, which seems like a necessary component of an ECare Plan.
negative: Hugh GLover's comments: 1) The scope explicitly mentions Research but BR&R have not seen this PSS before. 2) It overlaps strongly with work to collect data from clinical trials my establishing a Plan Definition and then collecting data via a CarePlan 3) This is a universal concern not a US Realm specific one - the funding being US based means it will be US centric but that doesn't stop some attempt to get international review 4) Is this really any different from an IG to implement a complex care plan?
negative: Yan Heras' comment on negative: The scope needs to be narrowed and address the concerns of the other commenters.
affirmative Project Approval Request
2 Votes , 20%
negative Project Approval Request
6 Votes , 60%



*  Refer to Can I add comments without editing the page? for directions.

3 Comments

  1. I'm not familiar with the AHRQ approved research proposal and I don't want to get is a fight about this project but the scope appears to be an attempt to solve all of medicine.  Why propose a FHIR IG when the entire field of healthcare has yet to converge on a definition and design of a MCC plan? Please constrain the project to an achievable goal.

  2. As discussed at PCWG conference call, the scope of this project - Multiple Chronic Conditions - is too broad.

    The project title: Multiple Chronic Conditions (MCC) Dynamic Electronic Care Planning and Management FHIR IG - suggests that multiple chronic conditions are in scope (and confirmed at the PCWG conference call to cover: CKD, Coronary Heart Disease, Diabetes, Chronic Pain), making it extremely challenging even for a multi-year project.

    The project dependency section indicates that only CKD risk screening and ambulatory planning are the dependencies. The scope "inconsistency" causes confusion.

    The scope section makes no mention of how "planning" and "coordination" elements are addressed by the project.

    PCWG supports the PSS in principle but recommends substantial revision of the PSS to address the many issues.

  3. Stephen Chu I'm confused by your comment.  It makes it sounds like Patient Care, who is the sponsor of this project, has concerns about the scope. If that is the case, why would Patient Care have voted to approve being the sponsor of this project?  Please confirm if Patient Care supports this project going forward.  Otherwise, I believe we should close the eVote until this gets resolved.