This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
20160524 US Realm SC Call
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
back to US_Realm_Steering_Committee
back to US_Realm_Steering_Committee_Conference_Calls
| US Realm Steering Committee Call Agenda/Minutes Location: 929-752-237 |
Date: 2016-05-24 Time: 1 PM Eastern | ||
| Co-Chairs | Ed/Brett | Note taker(s) | Anne |
| Attendee / Name | |||||
| Calvin Beebe | Keith Boone | x | Hans Buitendijk | ||
| x | Lorraine Constable | x | Johnathan Coleman | x | Ed Hammond |
| x | Tony Julian | x | Paul Knapp | x | Austin Kreisler |
| Regrets | Brett Marquard | Ken McCaslin | Nancy Orvis | ||
| x | Brian Pech | Regrets | Wayne Kubick | Mark Roche | |
| Regrets | Sandra Stuart | . | Pat Van Dyke | .x | Anne Wizauer |
| Regrets | Danielle Friend | x | Eric Haas | . | Jenni Syed |
| Regrets | Steve Posnak | . | David Susanto | . | |
| Visitor / Name | |||||
| x | Floyd Eisenberg | x | Riki Merrick | x | Laura Rappleye |
| x | Elaine Ayers | ||||
| no quorum definition | |||||
Agenda
Administrivia
- Agenda review
- Review notes from 20160517_US_Realm_SC_Call
- Action Items
- All to review US Realm Input document and email Ed with suggestions and comments
- Review Items
- Review Allergy and Intolerance Substance Value Set(s)Definition Informative Document - Elaine Ayers representing
- Review QRDA Category I STU - Floyd Eisenberg Representing
- Review QRDA Category III STU - Floyd Eisenberg representing
- Review Newborn Screening Lab Results IG - Riki Merrick representing
- Review HL7 CDA Implementation Guide for Inpatient and Ambulatory Healthcare Provider Reporting to Birth Defect Registries - Laura Rappleye representing
Discussion:
- Review of any outstanding issues
Minutes
- Agenda review
- Review notes from 20160517_US_Realm_SC_Call
- Action Items
- All to review US Realm Input document and email Ed with suggestions and comments
- Review Items
- Review Allergy and Intolerance Substance Value Set(s)Definition Informative Document - Elaine Ayers representing
- Elaine describes the project scope and need. Ed comments that this looks more international than US. Elaine describes that they struggled with that; the international work hasn't been done yet. Ed states that the international community should be made aware of the work and should aim to make the project international at a later time. Will be balloted informative. Hans: will there be a clear update to C-CDA 2.1 to help people point to the right value set? Should perhaps submit a DSTU comment containing the information. Eric: So we're not saying go back to the standard and create a specific binding to this work? Elaine: No, not at this point. Austin notes that many products are checked and they shouldn't be because the project is not generating those products. What is being produced doesn't have a box there. Is likely a new product definition. Lorraine: not a new product - closest is vocab domains and value sets. Hans: should also check V2 - infrastructure. Group discusses making a section for simply "vocabulary."
- MOTION to approve by Hans; second by Paul
- VOTE: all in favor
- Elaine describes the project scope and need. Ed comments that this looks more international than US. Elaine describes that they struggled with that; the international work hasn't been done yet. Ed states that the international community should be made aware of the work and should aim to make the project international at a later time. Will be balloted informative. Hans: will there be a clear update to C-CDA 2.1 to help people point to the right value set? Should perhaps submit a DSTU comment containing the information. Eric: So we're not saying go back to the standard and create a specific binding to this work? Elaine: No, not at this point. Austin notes that many products are checked and they shouldn't be because the project is not generating those products. What is being produced doesn't have a box there. Is likely a new product definition. Lorraine: not a new product - closest is vocab domains and value sets. Hans: should also check V2 - infrastructure. Group discusses making a section for simply "vocabulary."
- Review QRDA Category I STU - Floyd Eisenberg Representing
- Floyd describes the project. Is an individual quality report going back to ballot.
- MOTION to approve by Hans; second by Austin
- VOTE: all in favor
- Floyd describes the project. Is an individual quality report going back to ballot.
- Review QRDA Category III STU - Floyd Eisenberg representing
- Floyd describes the project . New ballot addressing DSTU comments. Discussion over DSTUs cited in regulation being allowed to get further extensions. Needs clarification. Floyd not sure that this one is cited. Hans clarifies that it isn't.
- MOTION to approve by Hans; second by Paul.
- VOTE: all in favor
- Floyd describes the project . New ballot addressing DSTU comments. Discussion over DSTUs cited in regulation being allowed to get further extensions. Needs clarification. Floyd not sure that this one is cited. Hans clarifies that it isn't.
- Review Newborn Screening Lab Results IG - Riki Merrick representing
- Riki describes the project. Austin: this is creating a new guide; not updating the old. Riki: Correct. It's taking some of the vocabulary work and applying it to a new profile built on LRI. Ed: you're looking at V2 but not FHIR? Riki: Yes. V2 is being implemented in newborn screening/labs. Ed: is international community totally different in what they do? Riki: all the participants in the project are US-based. Lorraine: LRI itself is US realm.
- MOTION to approve by Hans; second by Lorraine
- VOTE: all in favor
- Riki describes the project. Austin: this is creating a new guide; not updating the old. Riki: Correct. It's taking some of the vocabulary work and applying it to a new profile built on LRI. Ed: you're looking at V2 but not FHIR? Riki: Yes. V2 is being implemented in newborn screening/labs. Ed: is international community totally different in what they do? Riki: all the participants in the project are US-based. Lorraine: LRI itself is US realm.
- Review HL7 CDA Implementation Guide for Inpatient and Ambulatory Healthcare Provider Reporting to Birth Defect Registries - Laura Rappleye representing
- Laura describes the project. Adding inpatient reporting to a previous project. Hans: is this meant to be a C-CDA document type, or is it simply inspired by C-CDA? Austin: It's not actually a C-CDA document. It utilizes certain templates from within C-CDA but it's not actually C-CDA.
- MOTION to approve by Hans; second by Austin
- VOTE: all in favor
- Laura describes the project. Adding inpatient reporting to a previous project. Hans: is this meant to be a C-CDA document type, or is it simply inspired by C-CDA? Austin: It's not actually a C-CDA document. It utilizes certain templates from within C-CDA but it's not actually C-CDA.
- Review Allergy and Intolerance Substance Value Set(s)Definition Informative Document - Elaine Ayers representing
Discussion:
- Ed will be monitoring who is regularly attending.
- Ed asks if everyone would like Anne to send out PSSes for everyone early as it was done yesterday. Group agrees.
- Input from group (see action items): only Brett sent in. Please send to Ed. Jonathan states they're still working through it. This topic will stay open for another week to allow for more feedback. If you haven't had time before next Tuesday, let Ed know you still plan to provide input. Group discusses items. Johnathan notes that the first item is unclear in terms of DAF. Lorraine: where is the right place for the technical activities - is it this group? Not sure that the detailed technical stuff is our space. Ed: what we're being asked to do is how we would approach this - we need to determine how we will work with the WGs from a high level policy standpoint. Ed wants to take this to the executive committee as well and combine with this group's comments. We're attempting to set up a process/methodology under which we'll accommodate some of the issues noted in the document. Johnathan: As far as reviewing the membership of this group, how will that be done? Ed: Ed wants to know who is on the list of members who never show up. If people haven't been on the last 10 calls he will reach out to determine if they still want to be on.
- Review of any outstanding issues
- Next week's call is cancelled
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
