20140611 FMG concall

From HL7Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597

(voice and screen)

Date: 2014-06-11
Time: 1:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Lloyd Note taker(s): Lynn
Quorum = chair + 4 yes
Co chairs x David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio Woody Beeler,
Dave Shaver
FGB Co-chairs
. John Quinn, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
x Hans Buitendijk regrets Hugh Glover x Paul Knapp x Lynn Laakso, scribe
regrets Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech x Diana Behling
x Rick Geimer

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 20140604_FMG_concall
  • Administrative
    • Action items
      • Andy will take a look at the security fix on the objective C reference implementation (Lloyd)
      • David will check with those that supplied the javascript code as well as with the server side javascript problems in the DSTU build to ensure it has the security fix.
      • Ewout will document the offer from Furore to host the FHIR registry (Lloyd)
      • PSS for DSTU2(Lloyd)
      • Liaison responsibility review/ transfer from Lorraine (Hans)
      • check that RP’s for current proposal have correct owner and approve as block. (David)
  • Project reviews deferred from last week
  • New Project reviews
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

Lloyd convenes 1:05 PM

  • Agenda Check - may not get to reviewing the resource proposals. Rick asks to move the CCDA on FHIR questions to the top. Agenda approved David/John unanimous.
  • Hans joins
  • Minutes from 20140604_FMG_concall Hans moves and John seconds approval; David abstains, passes 5/0/1
  • New Project reviews
    • C-CDA on FHIR (SDWG) versus FHIR C-CDA Alignment PSS (FMG)
      • Lloyd questions: DSTU? Coordinator, and CCDA on FHIR dependency for CDA on FHIR
      • Austin is comfortable with FMG coordinating
      • Ballot type DSTU suggested if this was to be a peer to CDA in future it should be on the normative track. Austin did not know the drivers for the work at the time. In discussion with US Realm Task Force yesterday they were unaware of any specific drivers to move this forward. Lloyd notes that the drivers include:
        1. resources to cover CCDA were chosen to be the scope of the primary release; also a similar approach to FHIR in the 80% approach. By doing CCDA profiles we can vet the specification to ensure it covers the resources we have and can do those things that CCDA defines. If difficult or awkward to do a CCDA profile in FHIR it's a signal to adjust FHIR before the normative version is prepared for after DSTU2.
        2. Second reason is to give the WGs experience in developing profiles. Profiles for CCDA have well defined requirements making it a logical choice for the technical exercise in using the profile tooling to reflect those constraints.
        3. Thirdly there is appetite in regulatory and implementer community for path from CDA to FHIR.
      • Rick adds that they want to use FHIR resources as an authoring mechanism and want to have a bidirectional path between CDA and FHIR. Hans notes the exercise will indeed test the 80/20. Austin counters that this would only exercise the 80% within the US Realm.
      • Dependency Austin notes that for CDA on FHIR needs first to have definition of what a clinical document looks like. Lloyd asks what happens if there is a violation of principle from porting CCDA into FHIR - don't want that to be a restriction to CDA on FHIR. Rick states they do want to define CCDA in FHIR as the definition of a clinical document. Paul notes that this sounds like two different approaches.
      • Lloyd sees a long term need for full CCDA on FHIR normative route. SDWG wants this now. Proper CCDA on FHIR would require design work in the Work Groups which they do not have time to do in this timeframe to exercise the vetting process envisioned for the FHIR normative spec. Lloyd is talking about creating mappings using the profile section. If the WGs come up with slightly different answers to the questions mapping their paths, it may enhance the implementation of other artifacts to make it clear. Austin suggests one project with two phases with the initial project in the draft; second phase is what SDWG proposes.
      • Rick leaves; Paul voices concern over WGs without nuanced understanding of CCDA establishing this work and running into walls leaving the second phase to perform cleanup. Lloyd sees the SDWG involvement as beneficial in both phases. Austin wants to ensure that the product "CDA" works the same whether it's in V3 or in FHIR and reflects the concept of "Clinical Document". Take FHIR and profile to reflect 6 key principles of clinical document or take CDA R2 spec, including header and make one profile for mirroring CDA R2 in FHIR. Example of 'patient' not allowed to be the author of clinical document discussed in relation to whether FHIR approach should be reflected back into CDA. It might have gone forward into CDA R3 but that's no longer on the books.
      • Austin will take a shot at getting a merged draft out in a day or two.
      • Austin notes that not all the WGs have the training on the profiling and not all have acknowledged they will do the work.
  • With little time remaining, Paul notes that the SDC PSS does not include the IG- what are the modification steps needed. Hans speaks in favor of continuing with the PSS updates and it would not invalidate its approval in the ballot. Lloyd notes that as the project has evolved they would like to have feedback on an IG as well as other material in the spec. Hans notes there were areas that were specifically excluded as out of scope and are we biting off too much. OO changes to observation resource would be challenging. DataElement was not in the DSTU, Questionnaire has been refactored based on input from the connectathon. Hans thinks the project team should come back to OO to review. Is FMG ok with subset of FHIR materials going out in for comment only? Do we want WGs to send out any old notional resources going out for ballot as comment only? Lloyd's arm was twisted so that the SDO can point to a published version. It is pointed out that their dates have changed and it is questionable practice. Hans notes that draft for comment does not get published so there's nothing to point to and the ballot site is members-only. Would a peer review be more effective?
    • PSS is for a profile on SDC, which is effectively an implementation guide.
    • Hans asks if we should have a motion that FMG allow pre-DSTU draft for comment ballot rounds for development materials? Lloyd prefers a policy statement which he will draft, and treat this as a one-off. Paul suggests we also ask them to clarify the PSS including the timing and Hans also asks to take it back to OO.


Adjourned 2:15 PM


  • Deferred business
  • Administrative
    • Action items
      • Andy will take a look at the security fix on the objective C reference implementation (Lloyd)
      • David will check with those that supplied the javascript code as well as with the server side javascript problems in the DSTU build to ensure it has the security fix.
      • Ewout will document the offer from Furore to host the FHIR registry (Lloyd)
      • PSS for DSTU2(Lloyd)
      • Liaison responsibility review/ transfer from Lorraine (Hans)
      • check that RP’s for current proposal have correct owner and approve as block. (David)
  • Project reviews deferred from last week
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • 20140618 FMG concall
    • Lynn offers regrets for the next two weeks - Lloyd will support the call and David will scribe


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International

Copyright © Health Level Seven International ® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The reproduction of this material in any form is strictly forbidden without the written permission of the publisher.