Summary

Request for input: Definitions and use cases in relation to Care plan documents. Please see the links section for further information.

Topic presenter: Monica Harry

 

DateRequested actionRequester(s)Response required by:Comments
 14 March 2017
 Upload of any additional documents or links by Monica Harry
  16 March 2017 
     

Links

Document Link: SCTQA-92 Revise Care plan concepts

EAG discussion: 2017-01-20 Editorial Advisory Group Conference call

CMAG meeting: 2017-03-14 - CMAG Meeting

Relevant documents

Actions: 

DateRequested actionRequester(s)Response required by:Comments
 14 March 2017

Review proposed plan for the management of Care plan concepts and provide your countries feedback.

Note: Monica to provide a briefing note.

  • Camilla Wiberg Danielsen Please provide feedback on the proposal for management of Care plan concepts  
  • Daniel Karlsson Please provide feedback on the proposal for management of Care plan concepts   
  • Elaine Wooler Please provide feedback on the proposal for management of Care plan concepts   
  • Elze de Groot  Please provide feedback on the proposal for management of Care plan concepts   
  • Former user (Deleted)  Please provide feedback on the proposal for management of Care plan concepts   
  • Linda Parisien Please provide feedback on the proposal for management of Care plan concepts    
  • Matt Cordell Please provide feedback on the proposal for management of Care plan concepts    
  • Former user (Deleted) Please provide feedback on the proposal for management of Care plan concepts    
  • Jostein Ven Please provide feedback on the proposal for management of Care plan concepts    
Please post your final responses in the Country response table below. Discussion comments can be made as comments.


Country response 

Table to be completed by each CMAG member for their country. Please note as per the TOR responsibilities consideration needs to be given to Member countries who are not represented on this group to ensure that their priorities are reflected in the group discussions. Where a second round of review occurs, this table may be duplicated.

CountryDateResponse
US18MAR2017This proposal seems beneficial to SNOMED, because 1) it derives from another standard; 2) it provides strong editorial guidance for content that has been inconsistently modeled across extensions. Moreover, it squarely anchors care plans into information artifacts. No drawbacks come to mind.
 UK 27MAR2017 Although generally this is what the UK expected I will need to consult on the recommendations formally with the change in the description. If we could extend the deadline for feedback to the 14th April this should enable me to do this.
DK27MAR2017Danish nurses tell me care plans are very relevant for them too, but presently the nurses do not have any comments to this proposal.
   
   
   
   
   
Member countries without a CMAG rep  

 

CMAG response

The CMAG response(s) which are to be fed back to the relevant group or person e.g. Editorial Advisory Group.

DateCMAG ResponseNext steps
   
   
   

 

Final outcome: 

Date: 

The action taken by the IHTSDO, Advisory Group or other as relevant. This may be a written summary or link to the relevant Confluence page.