2016-06-09 Patient Care FHIR Call
|Patient Care FHIR Resources Conference Call
Location: Conference Call
Time: 5-6:30pm ET
|Facilitator||Michelle M Miller||Note taker(s)||Michelle M Miller|
|X||Elaine Ayres||NIH/Department of Clinical Research Informatics|
|Eric Haas||Haas Consulting|
|X||Rob Hausam||Hausam Consulting LLC|
|Laura Heermann-Langford||Intermountain Healthcare|
|Jay Lyle||Ockham Information Services LLC, VA|
|Jim McClay||Univ of Nebraska Medical Center|
|Russell McDonell||Telstra Health|
|Lloyd McKenzie||Gevity (HL7 Canada)|
|X||Michelle M Miller||Cerner|
|Lisa Nelson||Life Over Time Solutions|
|Viet Nguyen||Lockheed Martin, Systems Made Simple|
|Craig Parker||Intermountain Healthcare|
|Scott Robertson||Kaiser Permanente|
|Simon Sum||Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics|
|Iona Thraen||Dept of Veterans Affairs|
|Quorum Requirements Met: yes|
- Agenda review
- Approve previous meeting minutes 2016-06-02_Patient_Care_FHIR_Call
- Motion: Elaine/Stephen Abstain - 0, Negative - 0, Approve - 3
- Negation Update
- Prior Action Item Follow-up
- gForge change request
STU 3 Timeline
- Wed, June 1
- All resource and IG proposals for STU3 have been completed, reviewed by WG and submitted
- Connectathon tracks for Sept have been proposed
- Feedback on gForge submitted to FMG
- Sun, July 17 - Substantive content freeze for ballot -- core resources
- Sun, July 24 - Total content freeze, start of QA
- Wed, Aug 10 (midnight) - All QA changes applied
- Fri, Aug 12 - FHIR ballot opens
- Fri, Sept 12 - FHIR ballot closes
- Fri, Sept 16 - FHIR triage complete and ballot content loaded to gForge (or alternate)
- Sept 17-23 - Baltimore WGM
- Sun, Dec 11
- Reconciliation complete/substantive changes applied
- Just over 10 weeks
- Will re-evaluate at Baltimore based on volume of ballot comments
- Dec 31 - Publish
FHIR Maturity Levels
- Level 3 requires the artifact has been verified by the work group as meeting the DSTU_2_QA_guidelines and has been subject to a round of formal balloting; has at least 10 implementer comments recorded in the tracker drawn from at least 3 organizations resulting in at least one substantive change
- Substantive changes (element names, sort order, vocabulary bindings, etc.) need to be applied by ballot freeze (Aug 10).
- Unapplied QA checklist changes can be logged as ballot issues to be applied Sept-Dec. Substantive changes after ballot should be driven by ballot.
- Non-substantive changes are fine
- Level 2 requires artifact has been tested and successfully exchanged between at least three independently developed systems leveraging at least 80% of the core data elements using semi-realistic data and scenarios based on at least one of the declared scopes of the resource (e.g. at a connectathon). These interoperability results must have been reported to and accepted by the FMG.
||Current FMM Level||Goal FMM Level||QA Status||QA Reviewer||Implementation||Comments|
|QuestionnaireResponse||2||2||Lloyd||Lloyd will QA to get to level 3|
|Questionnaire||0||2||Lloyd||Lloyd will QA to get to level 3|
|CareTeam||0||2||NA||NA||Aggressive goal (e.g. whether we'll get the implementations needed)|
|FamilyMemberHistory||1||2||NA||NA||Aggressive goal (e.g. whether we'll get the implementations needed)|
Note: Bold denotes top 20 resource based on survey
Note: Contraindication and Risk Assessment are owned by CDS, not Patient Care
Prior Action Item Follow-up
- http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=10067 -- Russ' comments about harmonization are denoted in the gForge, but he will be in Amsterdam on 6/9, so let's wait to resume discussion until 6/16 when he can attend.
- Will defer the discussion until next week, but Rob thinks there may still be some changes needed (possibly a hierarchy where active includes both confirmed and unconfirmed) to differentiate between record status (entered in error) and clinical status (confirmed, unconfirmed).
- Elaine suggested that we consider whether each status is "actionable" or not.
- Michelle suggested that we consider how systems have it implemented; allergies don't always get confirmed whereas conditions more often go through a verification/confirmation lifecycle.
gForge Change Requests
- Zulip chat: https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/implementers/topic/negation.2Fexclusion.20in.20AllergyIntolerance.20resource
- via Zulip, Erich suggested code (allergen/substance/category) + relationship (refuted/no known/confirmed)
- relationship mixes assertions (no known) and verification status (refuted)
- via Zulip, Grahame suggested seeking "a solution that enables what should be but allows a graceful path forward for those constrained by what already is in place"
- Would like to see how current use cases would be handled:
- No Known Allergies
- No Known Drug Allergies (category)
- No Known Latex Allergy (substance)
- Latex Allergy (confirmed)
- Latex Allergy (refuted)
- Terminology relies on information model to provide context, i.e. SNOMED would consider AllergyIntolerance.code = substance a causative agent.
- Do we need to declare context model for each type of SNOMED concept?
Adjourned at 06:34PM Eastern.
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.