2016-03-09 FMG concall

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

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

(voice and screen)

Date: 2016-03-09
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs x David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio Woody Beeler,
Dave Shaver
FGB Co-chairs
x Wayne Kubick
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
x Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite x Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech x Grahame Grieve
.

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 2016-03-02_FMG_concall
  • Action items
    • Lloyd to follow up on MnM PSS
    • Lloyd to update on AdverseEvent changes/whether or not WG will complete the proposal - Indication is that RCRIM is not willing to take it on. Patient Care may choose to take it on. A solicitation has been sent out to determine who will be using it and if they are willing to contribute resources. Add followup to next week.
    • Brian Post to check on SOA PSS
    • Brian to finish up ServicesDirectorandScheduling
    • David to follow up on track leads and completion of track reports
    • Brian Post to tidy up/combine tracks
    • David/Brian to draft ReferralsWorkflow proposal
    • Eric Haas to update DAF to reflect lab results
    • Paul and David to prompt CDS and Devices to make sure the proposals are complete and get them reviewed and approved with dates noted on proposal
  • Discussion Topics
    • Further discussion on draft report to TSC on ballot experience
    • Resource proposals
    • Further discussion on custom resources

Minutes

  • Agenda Check
    • MOTION to approve by Brian Post; second by Brian Pech
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Minutes from 2016-03-02_FMG_concall
    • MOTION to accept by Brian Post; second by John
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Action items
    • Lloyd to follow up on MnM PSS - MnM did not meet this week. Will add to next week.
    • Lloyd to update on AdverseEvent changes/whether or not WG will complete the proposal - add to next week
    • Brian Post to check on SOA PSS- add to next week
    • Brian to finish up ServicesDirectorandScheduling
    • David to follow up on track leads and completion of track reports - hasn't heard of anyone completing any track reports.
      • ACTION: David to ping the track leads again and add to next week for follow up
    • Brian Post to tidy up/combine tracks - leave on for next week
    • David/Brian to draft ReferralsWorkflow proposal - David has drafted and Brian is reviewing. Some concern from pharmacy regarding whether it can handle a classic medication order/request/acknowledgement. Lloyd reports that Order is replaced with Task; Task points to the referral. Tasks can have a parent/child relationship as well. There isn't a TaskResponse resource, there's just an update to Task. Task can live on the placer's system, the filler's system, or an intermediary system that both placer and filler have access to. In a RESTful world, they will need to have read/write access to a common server. Discussion over how it would work in another space.
      • David and Lloyd will work offline on how to edit this proposal appropriately
    • Eric Haas to update DAF to reflect lab results
      • David to ping Eric to see how it's going
    • Paul and David to prompt CDS and Devices to make sure the proposals are complete and get them reviewed and approved with dates noted on proposal- did prompt them. CDS states they've updated it and are withdrawing several.
      • ACTION: add Devices followup to next week
  • Discussion Topics
    • Further discussion on draft report to TSC on ballot experience - last week's discussion included idea of soliciting feedback from WGs on pros/cons of gforge; seeking alternatives; comparing the options to evaluate cost/benefit of doing a replacement and migration
      • Process section: no comments or updates.
      • Advantages section: Discussion over order of advantages. John suggests moving the top two items to the bottom. Made adjustments to order.
      • Mitigated challenges: No changes
      • Unmitigated limitations: Wayne wonders why just don't use a better environment and will look into the tool he used at his last organization. Grahame asks if there is a possibility not to use the ballot spreadsheet. Biggest challenge we have with putting things directly into the tracker is we can't link their eligibility to ballot with gforge. No question that it would be a culture change to make that migration. Grahame: Wayne needs a list with integration points as he's looking into other tools.
        • ACTION: Grahame and Lloyd will meet with Wayne to discuss.
      • Feedback from WGs: added bullet about a more modern tool
      • Recommendations: no changes
        • MOTION by Paul that we forward to TSC for review; second by Josh
        • VOTE: all in favor
    • Resource proposals
    • Further discussion on custom resources
      • This is the notion that there are circumstances where there is a need for resources to exist that aren't official resources in the spec. Two reasons: 1) it's not content that is covered by any existing resources but implementers have a need to have that content expressed in a FHIR-like way; either we intent the resource to eventually exist but haven't gotten to it yet or it's an outlier that maybe one or two systems in the world would make use of and it doesn't make sense for us to do it. For both of these situations we point people to the basic resource, which is clunky and painful. 2) The other use case is for folks like Open EHR who are enamored of the infrastructure resources and the tooling that comes with those, but don't want to use other parts because they have their own. Doing that means you are not conformant with pure FHIR and aren't going to interoperate with FHIR except perhaps from a gross syntax perspective. Benefits to allowing these people to use FHIR, but we would need to differentiate those systems that are fully conformant and those who are FHIR-ish, using the base infrastructure technology with their own data models on top. Grahame adds people who are outside of healthcare may want to use custom resources.
      • If we decide to operationalize it, we'll have to manage it. Would we say that the tooling is supported by us? Paul: If we agree that people can use our infrastructure, we could be required to coordinate any changes we may make. People who aren't members could end up with rights in the organization. Lloyd: Also there is a management aspect to when people go off and define their own stuff, how does that come in to HL7 if they'd like HL7 to adopt their stuff. Would those things come first to the WG or first to FMG? Brian Post: They're going to do it anyway - but will it be recognized as FHIR? Lloyd: Additional management pieces will be driven by the technology. You can define your own resource but you have to get a name that is approved by HL7. There would be a management process to oversee those names. Paul: Also a branding issue. Right now it's not FHIR unless it's done in HL7. Anything else is something that looks like FHIR.
  • MOTION to adjourn by Paul. Second by Brian Pech.
  • Adjourned at 5:32


Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

2016-03-23 FMG concall


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2015 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.