Page tree

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 9 Next »

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 
     

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

No files shared here yet.

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   
  • John Fountain  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    
  • Olivier Bodenreider 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 

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.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Member countries without a CMAG rep  

 

CMAG response

DateCMAG ResponseNext steps
   
   
   

 

Final outcome: 

Date: 

 

  • No labels