This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

2013-10-29 User Group Task Force Conf Call

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • What is an HL7 users group? What is the difference between an HL7 users group and a (generic) HL7 working group?
  • Identify our pilot users group stakeholder
  • Identify a key individual to lead the charge
  • Identify 2014 budget estimates for the pilot


  • John Hatem (chair), Bonnie McAllister, Ken McCaslin, Julie Crouse, Mark McDougal(scribe), Karen Van Hentenryck, Keith Boone, Marivan Abrahao

Minutes/Conclusions Reached

  • Julie suggested that we perform an environmental scan to help articulate the business need and value that such an HL7 UG would serve.
  • John reviewed a large number of candidates for the pilot. The list include areas like CDA/Structured Documents, Immunization, FHIR, RIMBA/AID
  • Mark asked for insight on the mission/purpose of an HL7 UG. He shared 3 examples:
    • Education and support for implementers
    • Identifying gaps or needs for more standards development
    • Nurturing a community of users organized by standards, topic or WG
  • John said that he views the users group as determining its own agenda topics. The UG may have a different focus at each of the meetings. He does not believe they would focus on replacing HL7’s education, standards development, etc.
  • Bonnie noted that sharing insight on and lessons learned would be valuable. She views the focus to serve a collaborative role in helping one another.
  • Julie supports the need to supporting the users to achieve MU. As an example, ONC let the users determine how best to implement standards, which did not provide enough support to many users.
  • Keith shared insight on the types of activities that UGs that he is familiar with have provided, such as collaborating on projects in a self-driven mode.
  • Mark expressed concern that enabling each community to determine on their own what they will work on risks lack of direction that would be so dependent upon those leading the charge, which may or may not be problematic.
  • John suggested that having each UG community determine on their own what they wish to focus on is reasonable.
  • Keith views it as a community based activity for socializing and self-directing forum of user groups.
  • John noted that we will also establish a set of metrics of success to monitor and foster the growth of UGs to determine what works and what does not work.
  • Keith noted that his experience with UG meetings may include presentations that are generally brief and up to one hour in length. The duration of such presentations would not get into the depth of detailed presentations and resemble ambassador presentations and not 3 hour tutorials.
  • Julie noted that the value of a UG go above and beyond providing educational tutorials.
  • Julie asked who the UG would be targeting? Is it for the “101” new people or for the well-versed people?
  • Keith believes we are over thinking this. He believes that we ought to be prepared to serve and support people at all levels of knowledge of HL7. A little bit of mentoring is a good idea. We should still allow the UG to determine how best to be useful to its users.
  • Marivan asked if there would be a cost to join the UG community. John responded that he understood that there would be no fees for HL7 members to participate, but nonmembers may have to pay a nominal fee.
  • Keith thinks that the UGs could determine how best to fund its operations. He does not believe the focus will be on revenue generation.

Next Meeting Proposed Agenda

  • Determine which group should be our pilot
  • Any other business