Patient Care Coordination (PCC) Technical Framework Supplemen
Submitter Supplement Name Other Vol Section # Line #
Name (click cell and select from Docu
list) ment
Nam
felhofer Transport Record title page 0
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record title page 0
Summary Profiles
moore Transport Record title page 0
Summary Profiles
moore Transport Record title page 0
Summary Profiles
Intro 119
felhofer Transport Record 1 2.4 164
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record 1 2.5 168
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record X 175
Summary Profiles
moore Transport Record X 177
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record 1 X.1 186
Summary Profiles
moore Transport Record 1 x.1 188
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record 1 X.2.1 194
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record 1 X.2.1 194
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record 1 X.2.2 211
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record 1 X.2.2 219
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record X.4 255
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record 1 X.5 284
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record X.5.1 299
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record X.5.2 305, 308
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record X.5.3 301
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record 1 X.5.1 285
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record 1 X.5.4 319
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record 1 X.5.6 335
Summary Profiles
felhofer Transport Record X.6 342
Summary Profiles
1
felhofer Transport Record X.7 346
Summary Profiles 1
felhofer Transport Record X.7 361
Summary Profiles
1
moore Transport Record X.7 361
Summary Profiles
1
felhofer Transport Record 385
Summary Profiles
1
felhofer Transport Record 5.1 410
Summary Profiles 2
felhofer Transport Record 5.1 410
Summary Profiles
2
6.3.1.A.4 433
Transport Record
moore Summary Profiles 2
6.3.1.A.4 433
Transport Record
moore Summary Profiles 2
6.3.1.A.4 433
Transport Record
moore Summary Profiles 2
6.3.1.B.4 462
Transport Record
moore Summary Profiles 2
6.3.1.C.4 496
Transport Record
moore Summary Profiles 2
re Coordination (PCC) Technical Framework Supplement Public Comment Form
Issue
It would be nice if the title page contained the name
and acronym of the 2 profiles (I think) included in this
supplement
I read the entire document and very confused about
whether this **supplement** to the PCC technical
framework is intended to contain one IHE profile or
two. Section X.3 talks about the "Transport Record
Summary Profile" , but Figure X.3-1 contains an Actor
diagram (in the wrong format) labeled "TTP Actor
Diagram"...the first time that acronym is used. Later
in Vol 2, sec 5.1, you identify 3 format codes, but
only 2 are associated with a profile (neither of which
is identified clearly in Vol 1).
I sought clarification and was told that this document
is intended to contain 2 profiles: ITS (Interfacility
Transport Summary) and ETS (EMS Transport
Summary). The comments that follow are based on
that assumption.
This is a followup to Felhofer's comment above. This
is an issue that is similar to what we saw with the
Antepartum work three years ago. There are content
profile definitions and then there is something that ties
those content profiles together. PCC finally separated
the APR content profiles with the idea that they would
tie them together with something else. That work is not
yet complete, but at least we have the documents
defined.
I suggest that you do the following:
1. Publish (two) separate supplements for ITS and
ETS. That will allow you to clearly specify these. Do
not include anything that says how these are tied
together.
2. Publish a third supplement that describes how you
tie these together. Maybe you publish that as a white
paper this year and turn it into a profile next year.
This is followup to my own comment. Think about
what a customer would see from an IHE Integration
Statement. Given this document, can a vendor write an
Integration Statement that is clear to a customer. I
don't think I can. As a Content Creator, I don't know
how to express that I create an ETS vs an ITS.
Before the boiler plate intro stuff, state up front that
this document defines 2 profiles. Identify their names
and acronyms and a short statement describing each.
Please help set context for the reader!
Either there are dependencies, or not. Do not publish for TI
with "?" in this table. There should be a row for each of the
2 profiles. If there are no dependencies for those profiles,
say "none"
You cannot anticipate when this supplement will be folded
into the PCC TF as final text; but you will deprecated ETC
this year in favor of this TI supplment. Recommend the
following changes:
You have 2 alternatives. Create 2 separate profiles, ITS and
ETS, each with a Content and Creator actor, and with
separate chapters in Vol 1. Or, create one profile (TRS?)
with a Content Creator and Content Consumer actor, and
then add TRS and ITS options to each of those actors.
The reference to 911 for pre-hospital is likely US specific.
suggested update (if you keep this text):
This statement does not add to the introduction. Other
countries may have other modes of transport. Even in the
US, non-mechanized transport is possible.
This team may be part of a fixed wing, helicopter or
ambulance transport
suggested rewording:
"…is shown in Figure 2.2-1 below" …there is a mismatch
between this text and the actual figure number below. I think
this is right and the figure needs to be updated.
"The shaded actors are defined elsewhere in IHE PCC
profiles." …what shaded actors?... none in the diagram
Also, why not move the diagram into this section? At first I
thought it was missing.
typo:
Is it likely the most readers of the use case will know what
"XCA" stands for.
The text that describes these options, common across many
PCC profiles, should not appear in Vol 1 of each profile.
Specifically identify "this profile"
"… Content profile may impose additional requirements on
the transactions when grouped with actors from other IHE
Profiles." Does this profile impose add'l rqmts? If not, this
statement has no value here.
Specifically identify "this profile"
Specifically identify "this profile"
"Content Bindings" have very specific requirements for
metadata mapping when Content Creators are grouped with
'source actors in XDS/XDR/SDM. These are detailed in
PCC TF-2:4.1 and that section should be specifically
referenced here (perhaps in X.5.2).
"A Document Source should profile the capability…" You
don't have a Document Source actor in this provile. How is
this relevant? Either identify how an actor in this profile has
special rqmts when grouped with a NAV actor, or delete this
section.
Clarify which profile/actor you are referring to
If you have no special Security Considerations
applicable to that profile, state that; otherwise,
complete this section (ie don't leave the italicized
content from the template).
Why is this content in Vol 1 rather than Vol 2?
"Table X.7-1 describes an asbtract list of data elements
that must be part of the information
presented in tables X.7.1-1 and X.7.2-1, EMS
Transport Data Element Index and Interfacility
Transport Data Element Index respectively. "
…I'm not clear on the relationship between table X.1-7
and the two that follow it. If I'm an implementer, can I
skip X.7-1 because it's an "abstract list", and I will be
implementing based on the other to tables? or ???
Followup to Felhofer comment for line 361. This level
of detail does not belong in volume 1.
You define "Share Content (Limited)" and "Share Content
(Final)" but these terms are not used elsewhere in Volume 1.
Not even in Use Case 2. If there are different requiremenst
for data elements under certain conditions, these need to be
specifically identified. Does the differences between these 2
result in different documents (different format codes??). If
not, how are they distinguished?
When would one ever use the 1st template ID in the table; it
is not associated with any profile.
There should be an editor's box preceding this table with
instructions to add these codes to the existing table in PCC
TF-2 sec 5.1
Yay!! Thank you for using a format that makes it clear which
attributes shall be present, which may be null and cardinality.
Many of your sections have cardinalities of [0..*] and [1..*].
I am confused by this. Do you mean that the document would
consider multiple instances of those sections, or that those
sections can contain multiple "values"
I am terribly confused. Why is this here if it is not part of a
profile or something that someone will implement and
deliver. Or, do you expect someone to implement the TRS
and publish as a document.
Many of your sections have cardinalities of [0..*] and [1..*].
I am confused by this. Do you mean that the document would
consider multiple instances of those sections, or that those
sections can contain multiple "values"
Many of your sections have cardinalities of [0..*] and [1..*].
I am confused by this. Do you mean that the document would
consider multiple instances of those sections, or that those
sections can contain multiple "values"
k Supplement Public Comment Form
Proposed Change Priority
Low
High
High
If you take this advice, publishing the separate supplements
with two different content profiles is mechanical. Your
supplements will look like the existing content profiles. That
will allow you to focus attention on the third document that
orchestrates how the documents are pulled together
High
As I suggest above, publish separate supplements. If you want
this in one supplement, then you should have in Volume 1:
1. Section X that lists the content profile ETS
2. Section Y that lists the content profile ITS
3. Section Z that describes how these are linked
This allows me to clearly state what I am selling. Do not make
one profile with the option of doing either ETS or ITS with a
named option. We did that for XDS-MS and later decided it
best to have separate content profiles.
Low
Mediu
m
2.5 History of Annual Changes Low
In the 2011-2012 cycle of the Patient Care Coordination
Initiative, the following content profile was added as a
supplement to the technical framework.
• Deprecated the EMS Transfer of Care (ETC) Profile. 170
• Added the Interfacility Transport Summary profile that....
- Added the EMS Transport Summary profile that...
High
Replace with something more generic, e.g., emergency case Low
We are focused The Transport Record Summary profiles focuses Low
on only those events that involve a transport team, which for this
profile is defined as any team of license or certified care providers
that create content for the EMR.
We are This profile is not focused on multiple events associated
with long term patient care, but rather each incident that requires a
specific number of transports between health care settings.
Consider deleting the sentence altogether. You will not lose anyting Low
Upon determination of determining the patient identity, the
prehospital provider consumes data previously gathered in other IHE
PCC Profiles
Low
replace "asian" with "Asian" Low
spell out the acronym and identify it as an IHE profile Low
Isn't there a common definition to point to? Mediu
m
This section describes the behaviors expected of the Content Creator Low
and Content Consumer actors of XXX this profile when grouped…
Low
Low
Low
Mediu
m
Mediu
m
When the a TRS Content Creator of this profile is grouped with a Low
Content Consumers of other PCC profiles in Table X.5.6-1 found
in the IHE PCC Technical Framework, the following key
information available in documents specified in these profiles must
be able to be transferred from consumer to the creator for
incorporation into the exchange.
Mediu
m
Mediu
m
Mediu
m
As suggested above, publish separate content profile
supplements that place this material in volume 2. The table
of abstract terms goes away unless you want to include it
somewhere in volume 2. It does not belong in volume 1. High
High
Low
Low
Thank you, thank you, thank you High
Please clarify High
Please clarify High
Please clarify High
Please clarify High
CDA Content Modules
Reconciliation of Diagnoses, Allergies and Medications (RECON)
Transport Record Summary Profiles
Other
High
Medium
Low