Thanks, Tim. We're coming from a variety of backgrounds -- with a range of
informatics expertise and clinical pharmacy expertise. On the informatics
side, RxNorm is definitely in active use.
However, there's a large gap between resources appropriate for systems
development and those used for clinical purposes [1]. There's a lot of work
needed to close this gap. The minimal information model we are developing
is a start, in making a knowledge representation that can (compactly,
computably) record the clinically relevant information.
More informatics expertise is always welcome -- the standards part of the
taskforce meets Thursday if you want to get involved:
https://sites.google.com/site/ddikrandir/home/ddi_info_model_taskforce
-Jodi
[1] You'll see, for instance, that for side effects and interactions the
NLM itself doesn't recommend the RxNorm's Drug Interactions API but rather
clinical information, including John Horn's “Drug Interactions Analysis and
Management”:
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/Subject_Guides/druginformation/specializedaspects/sideeffectsandinteractions/index.html
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Timothy Cook <tim@datainsights.tech> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Timothy Cook <tim@datainsights.tech>
> 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:tim@datainsights.tech]
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 26, 2016 3:30 PM
>>> *To:* Richard Boyce
>>> *Cc:* public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; linikujp@gmail.com;
>>> brian.lebaron@va.gov; BHocum@genelex.com; CJVITALE@partners.org;
>>> Cui.Tao@uth.tmc.edu; malone@pharmacy.arizona.edu;
>>> daniela.oliveira@insight-centre.org; eric@squishymedia.com;
>>> draper.evan@mayo.edu; george.lilly@va.gov; gmcevoy@ashp.org;
>>> jschneider@pobox.com; harryh@pitt.edu; jeffnielson@gmail.com;
>>> sundaram.medimmune@gmail.com; jrhorn@u.washington.edu; jklimek@ncpdp.org;
>>> jp@rxdoc.me; jmbanda@stanford.edu; kak59@pitt.edu; kim.nolen@pfizer.com;
>>> laura.slaughter@gmail.com; lori.idemoto@gmail.com;
>>> peters@pharmacy.arizona.edu; maria.herrero@kcl.ac.uk;
>>> Breitenstein.Matthew@mayo.edu; MBrochhausen@uams.edu;
>>> matthias.samwald@meduniwien.ac.at; michel.dumontier@stanford.edu;
>>> Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org; michael.liebman@ipqanalytics.com;
>>> mail@jackpo.org; nancy@worldvista.org; nick.tatonetti@columbia.edu;
>>> hassanzadeh@us.ibm.com; yongqunh@med.umich.edu; olivier@nlm.nih.gov;
>>> beyan@dbis.rwth-aachen.de; nytroe@idi.ntnu.no;
>>> ratnesh.sahay@insight-centre.org; Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu;
>>> Sam.habiel@gmail.com; scott.nelson.rx@gmail.com; serkanayvaz@gmail.com;
>>> valerie@genelex.com; xjing2007@gmail.com
>>> *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 <rdb20@pitt.edu> 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
>>>
>>> rdb20@pitt.edu
>>>
>>> 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.
>