20130703 FMG concall

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

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/450662277

Date: 2013-07-03
Time: 1:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Lloyd Note taker(s):
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs x Hugh Glover x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio regrets Ron Parker, FGB Chair . John Quinn, CTO
Members Members Observers/Guests
x Lorraine Constable x John Moehrke x Lynn Laakso, scribe
regrets Jean Duteau Brian Pech Austin Kreisler
regrets David Hay
.

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 20130626_FMG_concall
  • Administrative
    • Action items
      • FMG normalized concept in T3SD vs FTSD and a narrative definition clarifying scope vs. other WGs.
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

Not quorate but can hold discussion.

  • Solicitation of QA participants, freeze in 5 days
  • Readiness is "so-so". Hugh will have modeling changes finished.

John arrives

  • Lorraine reports Patrick had errors and pinged Grahame for help.
  • Lloyd will schedule QA concall next week to review expectations and expect polish by the next Monday. Hugh will be at client meeting most of next week. Can't really delegate to others on Pharmacy and Jean is busy with other ballot material.
  • Will need to evaluate readiness
  • Resource proposal review - major challenges in identifying scope boundaries with similar sibling categories, especially with RIM mappings.
  • What are the criteria for determining if Immunization resource should be a profile on medication administration?
    • Hugh suggests you look at the resources that the two groups have produced and the extent to which one is a profile of the other. The two groups must understand the 80% principle. The resource is 80% and the proposal is 99% so there is a gray area. The more detailed domain knowledge could permit endless debate on what is in and out.
    • Lloyd also suggests criteria on typical industry usage. Immunizations are tracked separately from administration of everything else which might be a reasonable basis. If you retrieve administrations do you expect to get immunizations in the list?
    • Hugh notes that most pharmacy resources would do what they wanted and this was the only exception.
    • Overlap with Immunization profile in Care Plan is also noted. Query differences also recounted.
    • Similar issues with Document going beyond scope of CDA (IHE XDS) in negotiations with Grahame. John notes metadata should be generic enough to describe any defined document. Is it reasonable for systems managing clinical documents to also manage other documents? General document repositories might capture patient documents but who in HL7 can speak to that. Widening scope too much gets beyond the 80%.
    • Hugh asks if the FMG can't sufficiently identify scope overlaps perhaps post-DSTU get PHER and Pharmacy together to work through the scope. John suggests you make a more conservative decision in the ballot and require opponents to justify the more radical approaches.
    • Scope boundary issues should be highlighted for balloters/implementers to indicate interest in feedback.
    • Document: scope is broad, constraints on resource are not broad.
    • Domain model at high level should be included in the ballot package suggests Hugh. Take scope section out of each proposal and putting them into a section of the ballot and highlighting areas of concern. Need to be transparent in the decision making process and make these draft decisions and identified scope issues quite prominent in the ballot.
    • Discussion continued on taking resources to ballot where the scope doesn't match the definition. Lloyd's view is someday we may have a resource called document and a profile called clinical document, with constraints and perhaps a couple of extensions.
    • Hugh notes we should constrain things to what we have, and document the areas in question. We understand the 80% we deal with on a routine basis but not necessarily the last 20%. Need to find a mechanism to deal with this by consensus.
    • Lloyd suggests notation that document is overconstrained for general document use and identify clinical document use case or loosen things up and seek guidance on what pieces should be part of clinical document profile and extensions vs. document core.
  • Hugh suggests clearly identifying areas of issue for explicit request for clarification in note to balloters/implementers. May need to pass DSTU with some issues unresolved and anticipate answers from implementation experience before going to normative.

Adjourned 2:11 PM.

Next Steps

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


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2013 Health Level Seven® International