This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
20141202 US Realm TF Call
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
back to US Realm Task Force
back to US Realm Task Force Conference Calls
| US Realm Task Force Call Agenda/Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# |
Date: 2014-12-02 Time: 1 PM Eastern | ||
| Facilitator | Ed/Ken | Note taker(s) | Anne W. |
| Attendee / Name | |||||
| x | Calvin Beebe | Woody Beeler | Keith Boone | ||
| Joe Bormel | x | Lorraine Constable | x | Johnathan Coleman | |
| Julie Crouse | x | John Feikema | Freida Hall | ||
| Regrets | Ed Hammond | x | Tony Julian | x | Paul Knapp |
| x | Austin Kreisler | Lynn Laakso | x | Ken McCaslin | |
| John Quinn | David Susanto | Pat VanDyke | |||
| Visitor / Name | |||||
| no quorum definition | |||||
Agenda
Administrivia
- Agenda review
- Review notes from 20141111_US_Realm_TF_Call
- Action Items
Discussion:
- FHIR Standard US-Realm Extentions: Proposed changes to those listed here: {http://hl7-fhir.github.io/us-core.html United States Realm FHIR Profile]. To lead to broader adoption of these standard extensions due to ease of managability, Eric Haas proposes changing the value set to:
- us-core-race should be incomplete bound to the 5 basic categories ( instead of the current entire list of 100s)
- us-core-ethnicity should be incomplete bound to the 2 basic categories ( instead of the current entire list of 100s)
Minutes
- Minutes from 11/11/2014: Approved. Anne to search for any notes on the discussion from the 11/18 call that occurred before the call was cancelled and participants signed of.
- For USRTF review: Project Approval Request for Bipolar and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Domain Model at Project Insight 1144 and TSC Tracker 3764. Anne to contact co-chairs of CIC with question regarding issue of APA DSM copyrights and to invite them to next week's meeting.
- FHIR Standard US-Realm Extensions issue: Email from Lloyd - "Can you guys talk to the US Realm Task Force and have them decide how they want to handle generic US-realm FHIR issues (those that aren't WG-specific)? (And for that matter, their preferred engagement level for change requests that are work-group specific)." Group discussion: Realm issues are resolved by WGs in the context of projects, and this doesn’t appear to be in the context of a traditional project. It seems to be in relation to CDA on FHIR. If US Realm based, it would be C-CDA mappings. It seems CDA has made some of these decisions and we would want them to be aligned with what they have done. Race and Ethnicity: seems to be a bleedover because in labs, the race doesn’t fit all the things that they need. Public health requirement is different than the requirements of others. We need to understand the profile binding. C-CDA is focused on provider communication. What is raised here is a realm-level binding – who has authority to authorize that? Is it this group? Affiliates manage their own realm issues, and since there is no US affiliate, should USRTF have authority? Who grants them the authority? Is it the TSC? The board? Group discusses the notion that the TSC should give the USRTF that authority. Ken would like to 1) take it to the international council for their guidance and confirmation regarding the expanded USRTF role and 2) meet with John Quinn and suggest that the CTO bring it to the Board for review and consent. Austin suggests that this group would need to be more formally organized; Ken is not sure we have time to solve that issue before January, but agrees that we need to do that for the future. Suggestion of taking it to the executive committee as opposed to the Board until the group is more formalized.
- Timeline: December: have John take it to EC at the December 29 meeting. January: Bring to International Affiliates during Sunday morning meeting. Lorraine states that we need some interim FMG feedback. Ken suggests that Lorraine tell them that we believe we have the authority to manage the issues in USRTF and will be getting confirmation that we are correct. Who should we add to our team to make sure we are covering all data elements? Or do we have enough subject matter expertise? Perhaps some vocabulary input? That is probably what we’re missing. We will go back to the WG and suggest that they need to be really clear on which project they’re talking about, where the conflicts are, and then make sure we have the right people here to discuss it. Need to know the context of the extensions request. Paul will take back the issue to FMG for clarification.
Meeting Outcomes
Actions
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
