2016-09-23 SGB WGM Agenda

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes Location: Columbia		Date: 2016-09-23 Time: 9:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator	Paul/Calvin	Note taker(s)	Anne

Attendee	Name
x	Calvin Beebe
x	Lorraine Constable
	Russ Hamm
x	Tony Julian
x	Paul Knapp
x	Austin Kreisler
x	Wayne Kubick
x	Mary Kay McDaniel
	Ken McCaslin
x	Rik Smithies
Quorum: Chair +4

Agenda

• Agenda review
• Q1:
  • Carryover topic from May: Substantive Change
  • Carryover topics from Sunday meeting:
    • Followup from Saturday TSC meeting topics
    • Moving forward with SAIF materials/other joint topics.
    • Product Director discussion
  • ISM material
  • HTA material
  • Risks from the top down and HTA risks (top 3):
    • Definition and value
    • As it applies to artifacts
    • As it applies to personnel
• Q2:
  • HTA
  • Separation of Concerns
  • FGB precepts document (core principles)
  • Governance of materials shared across product families (issue from FGB)
  • Optimizing/adjusting meeting times

Minutes

• Agenda
  • Calvin notes that there is a sentiment that the SGB is not fully stood up yet. We need to create a body of work to show that we are operational. Group agrees.
• Q1:
  • Optimizing/adjusting meeting times
    • Call times: Group agrees they’re fine
    • WGM times: Joint ARB/SGB meeting on Sunday Q3; nothing on Q4 plus 3 quarters on Friday.
      • ACTION: Anne to check with Lillian on if 3 quarters is possible
  • Carryover topic from May: Substantive Change
    • MOTION SGB adopts the precept that each product family shall define what substantive change means for the product family artifacts conformant to the parent definition of substantive change.
    • VOTE: all in favor
      • ACTION: SGB to seek guidance from TSC on definitive home
      • ACTION: Anne to talk with Karen regarding potential locations before brought to TSC. Essential Requirements? GOM?
  • Carryover topics from Sunday meeting:
    • Followup from Saturday TSC meeting topics
      • As Calvin noted, we need to address the perception that we’re not functional. Need to start creating effective, essential precepts for the organization.
      • Lorraine: We also need to be addressing the issue of FGB, and the governance of shared materials.
  • Risks from the top down and HTA risks (top 3):
    • Definition and value
    • As it applies to artifacts
    • As it applies to personnel

• • Separation of Concerns
    • Principle: A mechanism of risk management is the separation of concerns. The benefits of separating concerns must outweigh the costs of the separation.
    • Precept: WGs should be organized where practical to separate the work items with respect to concerns.
    • Principle: In terms of separation of concerns, the body scope, work, or artifact which is definitional should be separated from the body or artifact which is operational.
    • Vocabulary examples:
      • Provides consistency across multiple product families of a particular artifact.
      • Managing IP issues regarding vocabulary
      • Inability to move data from one product family to another
      • Transforming a CDA document into an instance of FHIR
      • Risk consistency across applications and standards and maintenance of expertise if we don’t concentrate
      • Provides a central pool of talent
      • It allows domains to reduce the number of topics that they’re responsible for
    • Next steps:
      • Look at vocabulary items and characterize them as the work, the process, or the good
      • Look at FHIR family – why did we do what we did in terms of establishing a product family group/why management group, methodology group was established.
    • Precept: An artifact’s scope should be determined to support separation of concerns.
  • Governance of materials shared across product families (issue from FGB)
    • FHIR/CDA: Are artifacts truly owned by multiple stakeholders? Concern is product family on product family. We don’t have a clinical content domain, we have a clinical structure domain.
    • Calvin: What is the underlying risk/concern? Right now, the resources related to the document in FHIR have been handed to Structured Documents as their domain topic and execution on the ballot. So what is the part that is the issue?
    • Paul: The issue is that FHIR thinks that SD is going to own anything associated with CDA, and FHIR wants to assert ownership over anything that is FHIR-related. Neither actually owns any of those things.
    • Austin: CDA product family would be the co-owner.
    • Calvin: Domain committees are responsible for the underlying resources.
    • Paul: There is no FHIR WG that owns FHIR and is building everything in FHIR. FMG owns the management function, but they don’t own things. SD should own the topic and the associated resources. FHIR-I owns how you construct resources.
    • Austin: Grahame has created CDA serialization within FHIR but it has currently been pulled out.
    • Group reviews notes from joint FMG/FGB meeting yesterday:
      • Grahame: it’s a product family issue. People have various responsibilities for various parts of the product family; others have similar roles in other product families. But content is increasingly overlapping/being shared between families. How should shared material be managed? FGB and SGB will be working on this issue.
        • Question: Is this coming out of CDA overlap? Two CDAs and a 2.x
        • Family management group is responsible for the coordination of materials amongst the scope of the domains of interest.
        • Family methodology group is responsible for determining the methodology to be applied to the artifacts within the family.
        • Infrastructure groups are responsible for the artifacts which are consumed by the family methodologies.
        • Domain groups are responsible for:
          • the topic of the domain across multiple families,
          • the artifacts within those families which fall under their business scope*, and
          • consulting with other domains for changes in their artifacts which are consumed by the domain.
      • the artifacts within those families which fall under their business scope – needs clarification
      • Who owns the topic and the strategy for the topic? Is that the issue that is being raised? At this point is seems that Structured Docs owns the document topic.
      • Grahame arrives. No current problem, but there is a potential problem: there is a risk around confusion and mismatched expectations. Clearly there is shared content between product families. No product family documentation addresses expectations/procedures with regard to how that plays out. Goal is to get governance framework for if a problem arises. C-CDA on FHIR is an IG developed by CDA product family management that is expressed in terms of an IG; the technical support for that is a joint product between the two product families. Paul: It’s implemented and published as part of FHIR product family, but the ownership for the content of that would be the family that developed the content. Grahame disagrees. At some point the product family will be what they’re doing with FHIR. How do you decide who owns it? Austin: We need to set rules in place for how to manage that. Grahame: When work is done in one product family and published in another, there needs to be clarity. Anything that Structured Docs does in the FHIR space is owned by FHIR, but there is not agreement on that.
      • Austin: Where are the requirements being captured that are independent of any of the product families?
      • Content that appears within a product family comes from domains.
      • There can be a layering between content, semantic, and infrastructure domains.
    • Grahame is also drafting what it means to be in the role of product director and will ask SGB for comments.

• • FGB precepts document (core principles)
    • Reviewed document
    • We recognize the first sentence (HL7 as an overall organization has obligations…) as an additional principle that we need to consider when we deal with precepts.
    • Item 2 precept: A singular group is responsible for the persistence and presentation of formal HL7 artifacts.
      • Risk: ANSI audit, transparency, unavailability of artifacts during audit, consistency of presentation for consumers, ease of access for consumers, single source of truth, need to have history available for transparency, traceability, and process audit
    • Precept: Committees and WGs are responsible for the persistence of presentation of minutes and reconciliation-related materials
      • Risk: ANSI requirements
    • ACTION: Review WG Health metrics on future call in relation to this precept

• For future call:
  • Moving forward with SAIF materials/other joint topics.
  • Product Director discussion
  • ISM material
  • HTA material

Meeting Outcomes

Actions

© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved