20160913 arb minutes

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)

Agenda

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
4. Methodology
   • Immunization PSS referred by USRSC
5. Management
   1. Decision Making Procedures review
6. Governance
7. Other business and planning
   • WGM planning
8. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 20160913 Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Julian, Tony	Note taker(s)	Julian, Tony
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
X	Constable, Lorraine	Constable Consulting Inc.
.	Dagnall, Bo	HP Enterprise Services
.	Hufnagel, Steve	?????
X	Hyland, Mario	AEGIS
X	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
X	Knapp, Paul	Pknapp Consulting
X	Kubick, Wayne	HL7 CTO
X	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
X	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
R	Milosevic, Zoran	Deontik Pty Ltd
X	Stechishin,Andy	CANA Software and Service Ltd.
Guests
X	Newman, Craig	Northrop Grumman
.
Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair + 3) Met: Yes

Minutes

1. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
   • Motion to approve Minutes(Andy S/Wayne)
   • Vote ( 8-0 -0 )
2. Management
   • WGM planning
     • Cecil: Will not attend the WGM.
     • Andy B: Will not attend the WGM.
     • Paul: Thursday for part, Sunday Ok.
     • Andy S:Will not attend SundayQ4.
   • Decision Making Procedures review
     • Replace WORK group
     • Motion To approve with edits applied (Lorraine/Andy)
     • Vote ( 8 - 0 -0 )
3. Methodology
   • Immunization PSS referred by USRSC
     • V2 IG for Immunization messaging. Document refereced by Meaninful use and 2013 EHR certification. Publised by CDC and AIRA. Want to bring the content back into HL7. First document balloted comment only. After publishing CDC and AIRA took over. Move into NIST, then publish .
     • Lorraine: Update to HL7 approaches, or as is?
     • Craig: Moving things around - keep in line with HL7 based standard 2.5.1. Will base on 2.8.2.
     • Lorraine: Anything in 2.9 that will affect you.
     • Craig: I just got 2.9 chapter 4A.
     • Mario: Will join Immunization be added?
     • Craig: The hub project will be covered in the existing release.
     • Lorraine: Same IGs used for the HL7 conformance test for Immunizations?
     • Mario: Pilot done with CDC IG to do advanced testing, raising the bar above MU. Tested positive as well as error conditions. Will align?
     • Craig: Transfers CDC to an HL7 published document.
     • Mario: Add CDC draft work?
     • Craig: Not sure. If there is another group at CDC working on it i dont know.
     • Mario: WOrking with Nathan Bunker?
     • Craig: Yes.
     • Lorraine: ONC project is calling for computable conformance statements. Will you be doing so?
     • Craig: Yes, via the NIST authoring tool. Have also been on the conformance group with the RFP for conformance. Target to get into NIST.
     • Mario: Do you know the status of the tool? What is the mitigation path if there is an issue that Rob Snelick cannot resolve?
     • Craig: It is exported into word, so there will be a manual process to mitigate it. Not sure of official designation of the tool.
     • Andy S: No status with HL7.
     • Craig: Not ready for primetime yet.
     • Lorraine: Asking questions for interest as well as the goal of the review is that it is vetted by HL7.
     • Craig: Talked to John Roberts: Was external, but made regular appearance in PHER - confident it is up to snuff with HL7.
   • Motion ARB has reviewed the external content and are happy with the processes in place.(Lorraine/Wayne)
     • Mario: will CDC take this version on to replace the existing? There has been political positioning to use the CDC version.
     • Craig: CDC is behind the project : Goal to get the local registries homogenized. Want to make the HL7 version the official in regulations. Not sure when, the next certification will come out, there will be no competing items.
     • Mario: HL7 Immunization testing platform should inform this project.( Nathan Bunker/John Roberts)
     • Cecil: Local updates to 2.8.2 - will there be a process for those who dont met the criteria. Are work-arounds accomodated in the IG?
     • Craig: Migrating from one version to another is slow process. Original IG was 2.3.1, and some have not converted to 2.5.1 yet. Community is workiging on release 1.5. The registries will have to support multiple versions in parallel. Reason the timeline is so long - tiem to get release 1.5 done, the upgrade to the latest.
     • Cecil: What is the gain in going from 2.5.1 to 2.8.2?
     • Craig: The current IG has pre-adopted content from 2.7.1. PHER will not support pre-adoption, so we are future-proofing ourself. Need to do so to avoid current functionality.
     • Cecil: You could do it on a routing instead of part of the message. Another option.
     • Mario: Will you id breaking changes?
     • Graig: There are a few - moving data from one data type to another: Not loss of functionality, not fully backward compatible.
   • Vote ( 8 - 0 -0 )
4. Adjournment

Tony Julian (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2016 (EDT)