This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

2015 10 28 Minutes - CQF Data Model Call

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to the CQI Work Group Wiki
Back to the CQI WG Health Quality Information Models Wiki

CQF Data Model Call Notes

Attendees:

  • Ashley McCrea
  • Bryn Rhodes
  • Chris Markle
  • Claude Nanjo
  • Floyd Eisenberg
  • Ken Kawamoto
  • Mark Kramer
  • Michelle Darden
  • Nadia Ramey
  • Reshma Patel
  • Tom Oniki
  • Yan Heras

Content:

  1. Introductions
  2. Review QI Core (FHIR Quality Profile) - http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/fhir/DSTU1/qicore.html) and the QUICK Logical View as extracted from QI Core (http://hl7docs.appspot.com/quick/index.html).
    1. The group reviewed the May 2015 FHIR Quality DSTU ballot comment resolution spreadsheet. All comments have dispositions but it is not clear how many have been applied to the QI Core. The result of the ballot was not published since FHIR was still developing the DSTU 2.0 version.
    2. The group questioned whether a new ballot for FHIR Quality (QI Core) made sense. The key issue for review is to have potential users view the Logical View, basically a more facile view of the profiles to enable eCQM or CDS authoring. The CQI WG did vote to ballot the FHIR Quality Profile (QI Core) along with the Logical View on October 16. There was discussion that DSTU updates have less visibility and ballots have greater input. Further discussion suggested the main purpose of publishing the Logical View is to allow testing of the model. FHIR also plans to ballot version 2.1 of the FHIR DSTU in May 2016 so changes to QI Core may be better timed to align with that ballot.
    3. To move forward with either a ballot or publishing with an update, Bryn will review with Mark Kramer and Jason Matthews (Mitre) regarding the current status of tooling and updates based on the comment resolution.
    4. The consensus of this subgroup is to revisit the issue with the CQI WG and recommend an update to FHIR Quality (QI Core) with the logical view rather than go to ballot. This discussion will occur during the Friday, October 30, 2015 CQI WG call. If CQI WG agrees, CQI can move forward with an update rather than the ballot.
  3. Continued work on a logical data model coordinated with CIMI and Data Access Framework (DAF) to avoid excess burden on implementers of multiple data models.
    1. The benefit of a free-standing logical model is to provide requirements to standards development. A preferred method for alignment moving forward is for each PSS (from any FHIR activity) include representation with CIMI to maintain harmonization. Currently, there is no automatic method to traverse between logical models (e.g., CIMI) and profiles. However, the logical model should drive the physical representation of data. Some logical model requirements may take longer to express in physical representation than others; a continuous coordination is a good method to maintain synchronization.
    2. Moving forward, this Wednesday 1 PM (ET) meeting will include discussion of the logical model in conjunction with CIMI and results will be discussed on the CIMI Thursday meetings.

Next Steps:

  1. Review change from a ballot to an update for FHIR Quality/Logical View with CQI WG on October 30, 2015.
  2. Review existing status of FHIR Quality (QI Core) post ballot reconciliation from May 2015.
  3. Continue work on logical model in concert with CIMI and DAF.
  4. The next meeting of the sub-group will occur on Wednesday, November 4 at 1 PM ET.