On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Timothy Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Apologies for being to vague. Why are people doing this DDI work when > this great resource is already available? > If ou are not familiar with RxNorm, a little bit of observation and > reading will explain what it is. > > Opps, 'too vague' and 'If you'. Early morning fingers I guess. :-) > > >> >> >> *From:* Timothy Cook [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Saturday, March 26, 2016 3:30 PM >> *To:* Richard Boyce >> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: Minutes from the 2/24/16 DDI Information task force >> discussion (content sub group) >> >> >> >> Why? >> >> >> >> https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/InteractionAPIs.html# >> <https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/InteractionAPIs.html> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Richard Boyce <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> (FYI for folks on the public-semweb-lifesci list who are not >> participating in the task force [1]) >> >> Hello, >> >> Below I have pasted the minutes from the last meeting of the content >> sub-team for the DDI Minimum Information Model task force [1]. I apologize >> that I was forgot to record the meeting but I have tried to write detailed >> minutes. The full set of minutes for the task force are available [2]. >> >> 1. https://sites.google.com/site/ddikrandir/home/ddi_info_model_taskforce >> 2. https://goo.gl/TKWfNN >> >> ------------ >> Minutes for 2/24/2016 (Content subgroup) >> >> >> >> *In Attendance : Dan Malone, Evan Draper, John Horn, Oktie Hassanzadeh, >> Richard Boyce, Sam Habiel* >> >> >> >> Meeting recording: None taken (Rich forgot to start the recording, >> Sorry!) >> >> >> >> Meeting: >> >> · Brief discussion of progress on the *proposed task force >> activities:* >> >> >> >> 1. *Clarify definitions *for the seven minimum information items >> recommended by prior AHRQ drug interaction conference series >> >> o A sub-team has been working on creating definitions. Initial ideas >> have been developed and will be discussed over the next month: >> https://goo.gl/N0MxPd >> >> o Some questions were raised by the sub-team that were discussed >> later during the meeting. >> >> >> >> 2. *Propose additional attributes* >> >> o Depends on Activity 1 >> >> >> >> 3. *Create deliverables* using an interesting and non-trivial set of >> potential drug-drug interactions: >> >> o Depends on Activities 1 and 2 >> >> 4. *Create a foundation for further collaborative work* by >> disseminating results through an interest group note, a website, and an >> online discussion forum >> >> o Ratnesh Sahay has created a project that will be used for advancing >> development of the interest group note: >> https://github.com/W3C-HCLS/w3c-ddi >> >> i. A very initial outline >> can be seen here: http://goo.gl/ZMU1Wm >> >> ii. All persons who have >> participated in the calls have been listed as contributors for now (in >> alphabetical order by first name). Please email Rich Boyce with spelling >> corrections and the affiliation you would like (or if you would like your >> name removed) >> >> o Scott Nelson submitted a panel proposal on 3/10 to AMIA to discuss >> the topic of including seriousness as a minimum information item >> >> >> >> · Discussion of what DDI content to include in our deliverables. >> >> o Sub-team members had made progress on suggesting interacting pairs >> based on known issues with DDI evidence and knowledge >> >> § See https://goo.gl/rYpmjt >> >> o Rich created a survey to increase the participation: >> https://pitt.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0GPfzm7UbGDYV5X >> >> § *Survey closes EOB Wednesday 3/30* >> >> o It was decided that only one or two PDDIs will be selected for each >> category. The group agreed that, for each PDDI, a decision tree will be >> created that provides 1) information that can help contextualize the >> interaction depending on drug and patient factors, 2) management >> recommendations depending on the contextualizing factors in (1), and 3) >> evidence supporting or refuting each scientific claim made for (1) >> >> § Such decision trees have already been created by John Horn and Phil >> Hansten for several interactions as part of Dan Malone’s AHRQ grant >> (R21HS023826). >> >> · These can be used for the project as long as we provide >> citation to the authors and grant. >> >> · These interactions might fit as representative for certain >> information categories. The group agreed that, for those cases, additional >> interactions will be chosen to provide heterogeneity >> >> · Discussion of stakeholders >> >> o The question of who the stakeholders are for the min info model >> came up from the Standard sub-team. The content sub-team agreed that the >> stakeholders included primarily the following: >> >> § Clinicians (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and various practitioners) >> who must use PDDI information to make clinical decisions >> >> § Persons who create systems that provide PDDI information to >> clinicians in various settings (e.g., database vendors, drug information >> editorial boards) >> >> § Organizations that provide publicly available lists of drug-drug >> interactions (e.g., developers of RxNorm) >> >> o Clarification of this in writing is planned >> >> · Discussion of use cases: >> >> o Members of the standard sub-team had suggested using Medication >> Reconciliation as a target use case for showing the value of the info model >> (e.g., competency questions). Rich asked the content sub-team for comment >> >> § It was agreed that med rec is an important use case but one that can >> probably be broken down into a number of smaller use cases depending on the >> phase of the medication therapy process in question (e.g., ordering, >> consulting, monitoring) >> >> o Clarification of this in writing is planned and also a focused >> discussion at our “all team” meeting in May. >> >> · *Action Items* >> >> § Rich will merge the final results of the survey on suggested PDDIs ( >> https://pitt.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0GPfzm7UbGDYV5X) into the >> google sheet (https://goo.gl/rYpmjt) >> >> § He will then go through and highlight the PDDIs for which decision >> trees have been created as part of Dan Malone’s AHRQ grant >> >> - The next meeting will finalize the list and future meetings will >> finalize decision trees for the chosen interactions. In parallel, >> the >> standard sub-team will work on representing the chosen interactions, >> seeking feedback as they go. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Richard D Boyce, PhD >> >> Assistant Professor of Biomedical Informatics >> >> Faculty, Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing >> >> Faculty, Geriatric Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Gero-Informatics Research and >> Training Program >> >> University of Pittsburgh >> >> [email protected] >> >> Office: 412-648-9219 >> >> Twitter: @bhaapgh >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Timothy W. Cook, President >> >> Data Insights, Inc. >> > > > > -- > Timothy W. Cook, President > Data Insights, Inc. > -- Timothy W. Cook, President Data Insights, Inc.
