This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2017-02-01 FMG concall
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2017-02-01 Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| Chair: | Note taker(s): Anne W. | |
| Quorum = chair + 4 | yes/no | |||||
| Co chairs | x | David Hay | Regrets | Lloyd McKenzie | ||
| ex-officio | Woody Beeler, Dave Shaver FGB Co-chairs |
. | Wayne Kubick, CTO | |||
| Members | Members | Members | Observers/Guests | ||||
| x | Hans Buitendijk | x | Brian Postlethwaite | x | Paul Knapp | x | Anne W., scribe |
| x | Josh Mandel | x | John Moehrke | x | Brian Pech | ||
| Grahame Grieve | x | Eric Haas, Richard Ettema, Steve Huffnagel | |||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 2017-01-25_FMG_concall
- Action items
- Lloyd to update draft of PSS regarding the proposed new balloting process
- Reach out to IGs to see where they're at in terms of publishing - unassigned
- Help WGs start thinking about what's ready for normative within their content - unassigned
- Anne to update liaison spreadsheet once transition to BRR takes place - on hold for approvals
- PA to submit proposal for PractionerRole (Brian Post?)
- Lloyd to send out email describing draft resource submission guidelines
- Process for spec QA
- Stale Items - Actions
- Hans or Paul to reach out to US Realm
- Lloyd will reach out to GAO and QI Core
- Brian Pech/Hans to reach out to US Lab/OO
- David will suggest some words to add to the summary spreadsheet to explain the columns.
- FMM Levels Spreadsheet - Actions
- Liasons to reach out to their groups to remind them to update
- Review Items
- Stale Items Sheet
- Further discussion on Integration of Information Models and Tools (IIM&T) PSS
- Harmonization of Health Quality Information Models - FHIR PSS
- Discussion
- Draft Product Roadmap
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- FGB –
- MnM –
- FMG Liaisons –
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
- AOB (Any Other Business)
Minutes
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- MOTION to accept: Josh/John
- Minutes from 2017-01-25_FMG_concall
- MOTION to accept: Brian Pech/Josh
- VOTE: All in favor
- Action items
- Lloyd to update draft of PSS regarding the proposed new balloting process
- Add for next week
- Reach out to IGs to see where they're at in terms of publishing - unassigned
- Add for next week
- Help WGs start thinking about what's ready for normative within their content - unassigned
- Add for next week
- Anne to update liaison spreadsheet once transition to BRR takes place - on hold for approvals
- Should be done within the next 3 weeks
- PA to submit proposal for PractionerRole (Brian Post?)
- Drafted a proposal, as well as one for ChargeItem
- Lloyd to send out email describing draft resource submission guidelines
- Add for next week
- Process for spec QA
- David has spoken about it with Lloyd and is following up with volunteers
- Lloyd to update draft of PSS regarding the proposed new balloting process
- Stale Items - Actions
- Hans or Paul to reach out to US Realm
- Complete
- Lloyd will reach out to GAO and QI Core
- Add for next week
- Brian Pech/Hans to reach out to US Lab/OO
- Add for next week
- David will suggest some words to add to the summary spreadsheet to explain the columns.
- Add for next week
- Hans or Paul to reach out to US Realm
- FMM Levels Spreadsheet - Actions
- Liasons to reach out to their groups to remind them to update
- Add for next week
- Liasons to reach out to their groups to remind them to update
- Review Items
- Stale Items Sheet
- Group reviews. Discussion over deadlines and ballot items that haven't yet been resolved. Could defer them. Whatever is red - this week everyone should defer everything they can't get to so it's triaged for next time. By the 5th, everything for STU3 ballot must be voted on, i.e., have a ballot resolution. WG can vote to defer all remaining items and pick them up in STU 4. If WGs haven't completed by the 5th, FMG may do so for all remaining items.
- ACTION: David to draft email to WGs with these details.
- Group reviews. Discussion over deadlines and ballot items that haven't yet been resolved. Could defer them. Whatever is red - this week everyone should defer everything they can't get to so it's triaged for next time. By the 5th, everything for STU3 ballot must be voted on, i.e., have a ballot resolution. WG can vote to defer all remaining items and pick them up in STU 4. If WGs haven't completed by the 5th, FMG may do so for all remaining items.
- Further discussion on Integration of Information Models and Tools (IIM&T) PSS
- Steve discussed with CIMI WG the justification for universal realm. Anne displays email that Steve sent regarding that. This PSS is harmonizing various information models and terminology binding across HL7; that would result in consistent models that could be used to generate FHIR profiles and extensions. One thing we want to do is hae semantically complete binding and are working with some federal agencies. At the moment LOINC, SNOMED, and RxNorm are what's available. Paul: Are you hoping to go and create models that are international rather than jurisdictional? Steve: Yes. Our discussion last week was that models that we are creating can be creating examplar that if you're in a different country using different terminology, the models that we have could be examples and alternate binding can be used. For the US, Canada, and the UK, the models are generally usable. Paul: Except Canada doesn't use RxNorm. Steve: We discussed this with NLM and they point out that the ingredient information is basically international and any country can go in there and put in their units of measure and national pharmaceutical packaging and drug names/companies in separate tables. RxNorm can be made to fit or they can use something else. The US has stated that it will use the binding that we're putting there, but in other jurisdictions, they can replace the bindings with the bindings of their choice. Paul: So the strength of the binding is exemplar; Steve replies that is correct. Steve: If as we go forward, the government wants to make that strength stronger, we would create a US Realm version of what we're doing. Paul: There's jurisdictional participation and jurisdictional application. Hans: Where is in the scope or the definition or the need is reference to being US-realm specific? What concern from last week is left? Is it that all the participants are US? David: It was because the terminologies were US specific. Paul: But if they are exemplars, that removes that issues. Hans: What is the project trying to do? Steve: It's trying to come up with a harmonized model that everyone agrees with.
- MOTION to accept with the suggestion to make the project definition section more clear: Hans/Paul
- VOTE: Brian Post, Josh, John, Brian Pech abstain. Hans and Paul in favor.
- Steve will update definition section and send to group.
- Steve discussed with CIMI WG the justification for universal realm. Anne displays email that Steve sent regarding that. This PSS is harmonizing various information models and terminology binding across HL7; that would result in consistent models that could be used to generate FHIR profiles and extensions. One thing we want to do is hae semantically complete binding and are working with some federal agencies. At the moment LOINC, SNOMED, and RxNorm are what's available. Paul: Are you hoping to go and create models that are international rather than jurisdictional? Steve: Yes. Our discussion last week was that models that we are creating can be creating examplar that if you're in a different country using different terminology, the models that we have could be examples and alternate binding can be used. For the US, Canada, and the UK, the models are generally usable. Paul: Except Canada doesn't use RxNorm. Steve: We discussed this with NLM and they point out that the ingredient information is basically international and any country can go in there and put in their units of measure and national pharmaceutical packaging and drug names/companies in separate tables. RxNorm can be made to fit or they can use something else. The US has stated that it will use the binding that we're putting there, but in other jurisdictions, they can replace the bindings with the bindings of their choice. Paul: So the strength of the binding is exemplar; Steve replies that is correct. Steve: If as we go forward, the government wants to make that strength stronger, we would create a US Realm version of what we're doing. Paul: There's jurisdictional participation and jurisdictional application. Hans: Where is in the scope or the definition or the need is reference to being US-realm specific? What concern from last week is left? Is it that all the participants are US? David: It was because the terminologies were US specific. Paul: But if they are exemplars, that removes that issues. Hans: What is the project trying to do? Steve: It's trying to come up with a harmonized model that everyone agrees with.
- Harmonization of Health Quality Information Models - FHIR PSS
- Group reviews. Decision that someone from the project should come to answer questions.
- ACTION: Anne to reach out to Floyd to invite to next call
- Group reviews. Decision that someone from the project should come to answer questions.
- Stale Items Sheet
- Discussion
- Draft Product Roadmap
- Grahame not here to discuss.
- ACTION: Add to next week.
- Grahame not here to discuss.
- Draft Product Roadmap
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- Hans: Due to next WG being in Madrid, are there any general adjustments in focus based on our audience? David: Can't think of anything in particular, but we should put something out to remind people we're going to be in Europe and ask if people would like to bring specific use cases forward.
- ACTION: David will send out notice to FHIR chat to reach out to FHIR lists and International Council.
- Richard Ettema notes that he had good attendance at his intro sessions in San Antonio. Discussion over doing it as a webinar before the meeting due to time constraints. Does every track need to have an intro session? Paul thinks it has more value at the Connectathon itself. May need to cover the connectathon as part of the education track. Will discuss further over the next few weeks.
- ACTION: Anne to add "consider how the event is transitioning" under Connectathon management
- Hans: Due to next WG being in Madrid, are there any general adjustments in focus based on our audience? David: Can't think of anything in particular, but we should put something out to remind people we're going to be in Europe and ask if people would like to bring specific use cases forward.
- FGB –
- Haven't met
- MnM –
- No report
- FMG Liaisons –
- Hans reached out with open items for US Realm. US Realm addressed them on their call yesterday.
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- AOB (Any Other Business)
- Hans: As the roadmap begins to talk about R4 with combined normative and STU content, would it make sense that the publication of STU 3 be called FHIR R3?
- ACTION: Add publication naming convention to discussion topics for next week
- Hans: As the roadmap begins to talk about R4 with combined normative and STU content, would it make sense that the publication of STU 3 be called FHIR R3?
- Resource Proposals
- Reviewed ChargeItem proposal
- Won't include the transaction of the finance stuff. Will have a billing code on it, but that's the extent of the billing information. A service is provided that needs to be reflected against inventory or cost tracking. Is a charge record as opposed to a financial transaction.
- MOTION to accept: Brian Post/Paul
- VOTE: All in favor
- Won't include the transaction of the finance stuff. Will have a billing code on it, but that's the extent of the billing information. A service is provided that needs to be reflected against inventory or cost tracking. Is a charge record as opposed to a financial transaction.
- Reviewed PractionerRole
- Has not yet been voted on in PA, so this is just an introduction. Does not cover teams or groups. Brian Post asks if, given the context, will it be pushed back from STU 3 build due to lack of approval from WG? It's been included in the last 3 Connectathons.
- MOTION to approve contingent upon WG approval: Brian Post/John
- VOTE: All in favor
- Has not yet been voted on in PA, so this is just an introduction. Does not cover teams or groups. Brian Post asks if, given the context, will it be pushed back from STU 3 build due to lack of approval from WG? It's been included in the last 3 Connectathons.
- SpecimenDefinition
- Group reviews. WG approved in San Antonio, 2017-01-19.
- MOTION to approve: Hans/Josh
- Comment from Eric: As far as content, we need to look at FHIR specimen as well. Motion is amended.
- VOTE: All in favor
- Group reviews. WG approved in San Antonio, 2017-01-19.
- Reviewed ChargeItem proposal
- Adjourned at 5:25 pm Eastern
- David and John not here next week. Hans may also be out.
Next Steps
| Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) | |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2017 Health Level Seven® International
