20130204 FMG concall

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

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
web meeting https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/286625589

Date: 2013-02-04
Time: 1:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s):
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs x Hugh Glover x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio 2nd half Ron Parker, FGB Chair . John Quinn, CTO
Members Members Observers/Guests
x Lorraine Constable x John Moehrke x Lynn Laakso, scribe
Jean Duteau x Brian Pech Austin Kreisler
x David Hay
.

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 20130128_FMG_concall
  • Administrative
    • Action items
      • from WGM Liaison report: RP commit to translate EHR-sfm
    • Grahame - Status on Disclaimer edits
  • Reports
    • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
      • Topic will be abbi or ccda experimental track ... Grahame to follow up with Doug. Plan to talk more on next week's call to have scenarios determined by end of Feb
    • FGB
      • FGB requests FMG to recommend a methodology to address acceptance of ballot comments from connectathon
    • MnM –
    • FMG Liaisons
  • Precepts
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

  • Roll Call - convened at 1:05 pm
  • Agenda Check - Lloyd would like to add resource proposals after Liaisons; Hugh would like to see milestones for groups to set
  • Minutes from 20130128_FMG_concall Lloyd moves and Brian seconds, Lorraine abstains; approved 3/0/1
  • Administrative
  • Reports
    • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
      • Topic will be abbi or ccda experimental track ... Grahame to follow up with Doug. Plan to talk more on next week's call to have scenarios determined by end of Feb
      • Lloyd reports there has been no movement on abbi and they are waiting until there is more interest expressed.
    • FGB
      • FGB requests FMG to recommend a methodology to address acceptance of ballot comments from connectathon
      • Lloyd describes the nature of the remaining issues from reconciliation
      • FGB needs to work with GOC to make changes to GOM based on methodology recommendations. If it's methodology should it be MnM? ACTION ITEM: Hugh can draft process and procedure for review next week.
    • MnM – Lloyd reports they did not have quorum on their last call.
    • FMG Liaisons
      • Brian reports he set up a call with Peter Hendler of RIMBAA and with CIMI. There is no official word yet from CIMI. They are working at a different level of granularity, more micro than FHIR. They more closely follow OpenEHR archetype patterns. There is no obvious point of connection notes Hugh. At the point they generate resource proposals, we need to have criteria for such, to ensure the limited scope they're likely to suggest is reasonable.
      • Lloyd notes that CG is not up to doing Family History this cycle. They don't have the bandwidth. Re-representing what they already have is not what we're interested in. OO or Patient Care might take ownership for review. Lorraine feels PC is the more natural fit, though OO might review. This is intended to be more of a medical history rather than a genetic pedigree. Lloyd will note both OO and PC as reviewers and some triage will be needed.
      • Lorraine and Patrick met to discuss OO coordination. Waiting to hear back from Grahame on scheduling, Keith on dispositions. First thing on OO list is looking at resource proposals for all the resources on their list.
      • Hugh presenting to Mobile Health this week
  • David joins
  • Process management
    • Resource descriptions:
      • Lloyd feels we need resource proposals for all resources going to DSTU. Information will be important to the QA process, boundaries of the resource, sources of information, etc.
      • Template:FHIR_Resource_Proposal reviewed.
      • The specific questions posed are important to think through. ACTION ITEM: Lloyd will write up a couple of these for resources owned by Core team and we can review on next week's call. He will also report on what was hard and what was easy, to determine what guidance is needed for other WGs to develop their proposals. Lorraine looks forward to seeing what the expected level of granularity on these. David agrees that examples would be especially helpful. ACTION ITEM: Hugh will do a Pharmacy one also for a separate author's perspective. Lorraine cannot do one for next week but perhaps the following.
    • Ballot Planning
      • Establish criteria for inclusion in May ballot, QA processes for May, and QA processes for July. Need also to establish a set of dates for communication of progress as we go along
        • Timelines for review process. Date needed based on ballot open for review period, date etc. Extent to which we need things complete to do that QA process in May. Need also to describe what we want to accomplish in QA process in May, for feedback to WGs. What specific things do we want to accomplish/verify in that QA for ballot end of July (or beginning of August). Hugh notes we want to ensure that people have made progress. Lloyd notes that access to SVN can reveal that type of progress.
      • First DSTU ballot should theoretically be last DSTU, with content that is ready to pass. All data elements identified, with types, and definitions.
        • Ron joins
      • Should be content that is ready for use at the connectathon.
      • ACTION ITEM: Lloyd can write up a more formal description what needs to be there and how solid it is expected to be, for review on next week's call.
      • Suggested that liaisons should check with their groups on their progress towards these recommendations monthly. Lorraine suggests coordinating checkpoint deadlines with V3 ballot cycle milestones this quarter. Lloyd suggests a weekly checkpoint on progress would be better and not wait until after V3 content is completed by the WG. Lorraine adds that once the V3 stuff is in the work on FHIR will progress faster without dividing effort. ACTION ITEM: Lloyd may also make a draft of 2 or 3 stages or levels of completeness to identifying progress towards readiness of resources. PSS approved, SVN, vocab defined, etc.
  • Ron describes challenges with the connectathon comment acceptance for a normative ballot. Those comments may not be accepted.
    • Hugh identifies underlying rules for review with GOC for setting direction that Ron will undertake in addition to Hugh's process/procedure draft.
  • David asks about what happened at the IHE Connectathon. John has left the call; add to next week's agenda.

Adjourned 2:03 PM

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Hugh can draft process and procedure for review next week on methodology to address acceptance of ballot comments from connectathon
  • Lloyd will write up a couple of these resource proposals for resources owned by Core team
  • Hugh will do a Pharmacy one also for a separate author's perspective
  • Lloyd can write up a more formal description what needs to be there and how solid it is expected to be
  • Lloyd may also make a draft of 2 or 3 stages or levels of completeness to identifying progress towards readiness of resources, e.g., PSS approved, SVN, vocab defined, etc.
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2013 Health Level Seven® International