20141112 FMG concall
Jump to navigation Jump to search
|HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes
|Date: 2014-11-12 |
Time: 1:00 PM U.S. Eastern
|Chair:||Note taker(s):Anne Wizauer|
|Quorum = chair + 4||yes/no|
|Co chairs||x||David Hay||x||Lloyd McKenzie|
|.||John Quinn, CTO|
|Hans Buitendijk||Hugh Glover||x||Paul Knapp||Anne Wizauer, scribe|
|x||Josh Mandel||John Moehrke||x||Brian Pech|
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Suggestion from Lloyd to do a Bake-Off on CarePlan
- Connectathon discussion (brought forward from last week)
- Minutes from 20141029_FMG_concall (last week's call was cancelled)
- Action items
- Lloyd to attend FTSD call next Tuesday to discuss FHIR Resource Proposal
- Paul to submit change request on OperationOutcome that makes clear what its intended scope of use is, and on contraindication - when is contraindicaton appropriate vs. OperationOutcome.
- Anne to email for clarification requests for Appointment_FHIR_Resource_Proposal needed before approval can be made. (Completed 10/29/14)
- Paul to create tracker item to list WG responsible for a resource or profile
- Review/discussion of FHIR Change Requests
- Review/discussion of FHIR Profile and IG Balloting
- Action items
- Resource Proposal Review:
- Coverage FHIR Resource Proposal
- DeviceAlert FHIR Resource Proposal
- DeviceCapabilities FHIR Resource Proposal
- DeviceComponent FHIR Resource Proposal
- DeviceLog FHIR Resource Proposal
- DeviceMetric FHIR Resource Proposal
- DeviceObservation FHIR Resource Proposal
- DeviceObservationReport FHIR Resource Proposal
- DocumentRoot FHIR Resource Proposal
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
- AOB (Any Other Business)
- Agenda check: Paul would like to discuss December Ballot
- Minutes from 20142019: Paul moves to approve; David seconds. No objections or abstentions.
- Connectathon: what scenarios are in? Should keep simple. Lloyd’s thought was to focus on CarePlan; idea to split out goal from CarePlan. There would be a goal resource, a CarePlan participant resource, and we’ll add a proposed status to the existing order classes. May also introduce another activity plan proposal. The plan is to focus everything on DSTU2. The other thing that could be done is we could just use profiles on other, reducing the workload on the servers. Will raise some ideas on the implementers chat to see their reactions. Tentative decision to go with CarePlan as primary track, support both approaches as a bake-off and verify proposed focus on FHIR listserve and implementers’ skypechat. Will re-evaluate if necessary based on responses. David says we could potentially do a clinical connectathon; will bring that up to patient care this afternoon to see if it’s of interest to them. Motion to approve this as focus of connectathon; Paul moves and David seconds. No objections or abstentions.
- December Ballot: Paul bring up the fact that December is to be draft for comment with material in May. May have been driven by ONC expectations? Lloyd states that DSTU ballot was originally going to be in December to align with ONC. Decided not to do that because WGs wouldn’t be done. Decided there was value in doing a review in January with as much content as possible for comment. Take feedback and then be in better position to do DSTU in May. Paul states that groups are saying that the CDA folks are concerned about getting things done for May for DSTU ballot in September. Paul is concerned that in December we’ll review some real stuff but lots of placeholders. Lloyd states if we absolutely can’t do May, we could push to doing September instead, but that is not preferred. We don’t want to proceed on the basis that September is likely. In terms of content people want to bring forward now, there are three possibilities: 1) it’s ready in March and goes to ballot and goes DSTU; 2) the content either isn’t ready for production use for March or it goes to ballot and things need to be revamped, but we don’t think it’s stable or production ready; 3) content is not ready to be looked at by March and we decide it will be ready for next cycle. Paul expresses concern that we’re bringing forth sweeping changes that will push things off if we bring them to ballot too soon in May. Lloyd says that the Connectathon will address some of that. Group discussed various timing scenarios and potential solutions. The deadline is December, but if it’s not ready FMG will review for next steps. Lloyd states that workgroups should continue to work as though material will be balloted in May; evaluation on progress will be done in January. Official timeline from FMG has never changed. Paul suggests draft for comment in May (with content instead of placeholders) with DSTU in September. Lloyd states we are not ready to change things to reflect that plan yet. Lloyd states that target of July 31 to publish is possible, depending on volume and content of DSTU feedback. There is pressure to get things moving, not just from ONC but also from users who want to implement ASAP. In summary: 1) We will stay the course in terms of ballot timeline, and 2) we will ensure both FMG and TSC are given some insight into where the desire to maintain timeline is coming from.
- DeviceComponent FHIR Resource Proposal: Is there anything about this structure that would cause confusion for anyone? None. David moves to accept; Paul seconds.
- Coverage FHIR Resource Proposal: Discussion regarding coverage vs. policy. Policy will be a profile on Contract, and there is a resource proposal already for Contract. Action: Paul will update with info regarding Contract.
- DeviceAlert FHIR Resource Proposal: Must differentiate in their scope what the relationship is between this and Alert – should coordinate with Patient Care to ensure the Alert class also includes that differentiation. Alert is things that are supposed to be reflected long-term on the patient’s record. Three different use cases: 1) flag on patient’s record regarding patient behavior (I.e. biting) or state (i.e. deafness) that affects care; 2) something bad happened and you should check on it/deal with it; 3) formal in-device management of alarms. This resource seems to be regarding use case #3: in-device management of alarms. Action: Lloyd will ask for clarification on how this will work with Alert resource as well as with the proposed Notification resource. Why do we need a device flavor of alert or alarm?
- Adjourned at 2:00 pm
|Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)|
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2014 Health Level Seven® International