This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2016-02-03 FMG concall
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2016-02-03 Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| Chair: | Note taker(s): Anne W. | |
| Quorum = chair + 4 | yes/no | |||||
| Co chairs | Regrets | David Hay | Lloyd McKenzie | |||
| ex-officio | Woody Beeler, Dave Shaver FGB Co-chairs |
. | Wayne Kubick, CTO | |||
| Members | Members | Members | Observers/Guests | ||||
| Regrets for first 60 minutes | Hans Buitendijk | x | Brian Postlethwaite | Regrets | Paul Knapp | Anne W., scribe | |
| Regrets | Josh Mandel | x | John Moehrke | x | Brian Pech | ||
| x | Grahame Grieve | . | Rob Hausam | ||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 2016-01-27_FMG_concall
- Administrative
- Action items
- Review draft report to TSC
- David to start wiki page for Connectathon reports
- Anne to compare current PSSes to Google docs tracking sheet; review on next call
- Add updating liaison spreadsheet to agenda
- Anne to add instruction to template to send email to FMGcontact@hl7.org
- Brian Pech (and/or Brian Post) to chat with PA about issue with Account resource (all accounts or just patient billing?)
- Lloyd to pass on concerns on AdverseEvent (expand on resource relationships, types of outcomes recorded)
- Review Pending Resource Proposals
- Continue discussion from last call on whether CareTeam is a group or not.
- Discussion Topics
- Potential changes to FMM2 criteria
- Dealing with warning messages that people would like to be ignored
- Resource proposals - how can we accelerate review
- Update instructions to Resource editors on their responsibility regarding W5, and the guidance we have
- Connectathon/FMM3
- Updating Liaison spreadsheet
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- FGB –
- MnM –
- FMG Liaisons –
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
- AOB (Any Other Business)
Minutes
- Not quorate. Will proceed with non-voting items.
- Draft report to TSC on ballot experience: Lloyd hasn't yet incorporated feedback but will do this week. Will send out this weekend and then hopefully add to TSC call next week.
- David did start a Connectathon page for Wiki reports.
- Anne reviewed and added projects that have been through FMG.
- ACTION: Anne to compare tracking sheet to Dave's larger project tracking sheet to ensure we're not missing anybody
- Liaison spreadsheet:
- ARB needs a backup. Brian Pech volunteers.
- CQI: added Josh as backup
- International Council: John added as backup
- Terminology authority: Lloyd takes primary; Paul is backup
- ACTION: Anne to see if there are any new WGs that aren't on the list yet
- Anne completed adding instructions to template
- Account resource: Brian Post will updated proposal to reflect concerns. Will vote when quorate.
- Lloyd to pass on concerns on AdverseEvent: Lloyd did so and they will get back to Lloyd with changes
- Lloyd confirmed with PHER that if they take on other areas besides immunizations, they will have separate PSSs.
- Lloyd asked Patient Care to do some digging into how their systems deal with CareTeams and how they deal with things that Group is envisioned to work for and what the commonality may be. He will report back next week. Brian Post states he is in favor of it remaining a resource rather than being a profile on Group.
- Potential changes to FMM2 criteria:
- How do we count reduction to code that isn't done through Connectathon? Current wording reflects artifact has been tested and exchanged between at least three independently developed systems at a Connectathon. What if equivalent testing has been done outside of a Connectathon? Group discusses leaving it as is and addressing it if a situation comes up. Lloyd suggests "Connectathon or equivalent exercise." John expresses concern that other activities aren't measurable. Lloyd describes scenario where Argonaut is testing across systems and is able to report those tests.
- ACTION: Lloyd to draft the criteria for having a Connectathon or equivalent testing event
- How do we count reduction to code that isn't done through Connectathon? Current wording reflects artifact has been tested and exchanged between at least three independently developed systems at a Connectathon. What if equivalent testing has been done outside of a Connectathon? Group discusses leaving it as is and addressing it if a situation comes up. Lloyd suggests "Connectathon or equivalent exercise." John expresses concern that other activities aren't measurable. Lloyd describes scenario where Argonaut is testing across systems and is able to report those tests.
- Grahame joins
- Grahame states that we have a lack of a functional US Realm Task Force. It is focused on political issues and we've been unable to get them to provide useful and relevant advice. It is becoming a critical problem. It's become clear that we can't let the issue continue. Grahame has had strong feedback from US implementers. He proposes that we set up a US Realm Task Force for FHIR that will be a project group, maybe a WG eventually, but will report to US Realm and FMG. Will publish a US Realm IG and collaborate with all of the various implementation projects to work towards consensus building. Have some proposed leadership for the group through working with Chuck and Stan. Am looking for an informal read from FMG on the idea and what questions people have that we might need to consider.
- Lloyd: Why doesn't it work to get these same people engaged in current US Realm? Grahame states they have not been forthcoming with taking on tasks and the advice has been questionable. The things that US Realm is working on are important things, they're just not relevant to us.
- Brian Pech: Describes genesis of US Realm task force. The original task of the group was not to deal with FHIR's type of issues. Grahame wants to focus on content issues and leave the political issues to them. Lloyd: is the intent that this group will do work and publish content? Grahame affirms. Lloyd: then it has to be a work group or a board appointed committee. Grahame: we could go for either.
- Lloyd: Also there is a governance function that we had looked to US Realm to mediate disputes between different projects - there is a coordination/mediation function. A little nervous about having the same group do both. Any kind of an IG has context. Are they producing an IG for meaningful use alignment? Human vs. Veterinary medicine? What is the scope? What is the purpose of a generic IG? Is it the core set of whatever has been brought to us so far? Grahame: in Australia we have a national IG for V2. Baseline profiles for common segments and datatypes that deal with regulatory requirements and set baseline agreements for the specific functional standard that we also publish. We need a baseline for all US implementations. Lloyd: IGs we have in Canada are scoped for a specific architecture or solution set. Grahame: it's not a traditional IG. Lloyd: It seems to me that it will be a set of conformance artifacts to test the alignment of other IGs to ensure that there is maximum consistency. That is a governance kind of function. (Hans arrives.)
- Lloyd: Does the US Realm have knowledge of this notion? Grahame: No, this is a new idea. Chuck will speak with US Realm. Lloyd; what would the specific relationship be with FMG? If it was producing content it would be subject to the same ballot deadlines and criteria. Would likely have liaisons with FMG. There will be items that will come up from within WGs where they may get guidance from this new group. FMG might take conflicts between WGs doing US realm work to that group. Grahame: This group will produce content and act as a coordination/resolution management group for US Realm. Lloyd: Would almost prefer that this group not be authorized to create implementable artifacts, but instead produce governance artifacts. Responsibility is given to WGs to create resources and IGs. FMG would typically prefer for the primary owner of artifacts to be someone other than this new group. Brian Pech suggests we might get our needs met in another way. Is there FHIR content that is so specific to US Realm that we need a separate function to meet that? Lloyd concerned that it is going to develop and also develop rules for content developed elsewhere. Hans: creating a separate group with a wider scope including governance is going to be a challenge. Lloyd: would encourage to look at this as being a coordination and governance group producing content that supports that coordination and governance focus, but that whatever they produce is not context-specific.
- Grahame states that we have a lack of a functional US Realm Task Force. It is focused on political issues and we've been unable to get them to provide useful and relevant advice. It is becoming a critical problem. It's become clear that we can't let the issue continue. Grahame has had strong feedback from US implementers. He proposes that we set up a US Realm Task Force for FHIR that will be a project group, maybe a WG eventually, but will report to US Realm and FMG. Will publish a US Realm IG and collaborate with all of the various implementation projects to work towards consensus building. Have some proposed leadership for the group through working with Chuck and Stan. Am looking for an informal read from FMG on the idea and what questions people have that we might need to consider.
- Call adjourned at 5:35 PM Eastern
Next Steps
| Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) | |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2015 Health Level Seven® International
