2017-05-11 FMG FGB WGM

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 TSC FGB/FMG Meeting Minutes

Location: Borox

Date: 2017-05-11
Time: 4:30 PM
Note taker(s): Anne
Quorum yes
FGB Co-Chair/CTO Members
George (Woody) Beeler x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve David Hay
x Dave Shaver x Ewout Kramer x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) Calvin Beebe
Wayne Kubick
Members Members FMG Members Observers/Guests
x Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite x Paul Knapp
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke Brian Pech
observers/guests x Ashley Duncan
x Michel Rutten
x Richard Ettema
x Michelle Miller
x Dennis Patterson
x Michael Donnelly
x Kevin Shekleton


  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Review
    • Issues from the week
    • Product priorities
    • Feedback from liaisons
    • Feedback on QA rules
    • Feedback on workflow
    • Meeting report

Minutes/Conclusions Reached

  • Issues from the week
    • Ewout: lots of feedback on FMM levels. People feel they are rules to comply to rather than a tool to report to the outside world on stability. Confusion about some terms. Grahame confirms these are guidelines, not rules. We should clarify that. Grahame also notes that when we get to 4 and 5, people are unsure how many people have used it. Confusion about how to build committee relationship with implementers. Need a formal process to gather info about usage and post on FHIR.org. Ewout: We should also look at how many times resources get profiled. Josh: As far as the formal process there are spots where WGs are supposed to make a decision to bring something along with a vote. Lorraine: The question is, how do they get the input to make that decision? Ewout: A few asked what wide implementer consensus is and how to determine? Grahame: Maybe we should consider having committee-specific streams on Zulip.
      • ACTION: Add building committee involvement to future agenda
    • Grahame: Will be creating more threads to help move discussions in the right direction/managing the streams on Zulip. John: It would be nice to get more statistics on usage during the Connectathon. Grahame: Richard may be able to sniff that out.
      • ACTION: Grahame/Richard to look into getting more usage statistics during Connectathon.
    • Ewout: Clinicians want to know about clinical maturity beyond the FMM levels. Grahame: We need to beef up the safety side of the house. If you’re interested in safety, contact Grahame to discuss.
    • Grahame: Fair amount of discussion about normative status in committees. Confusion around when different parts of a resource are at a different status. Also discussed pages with mixed normative and STU content. None of the committees identified any issues from FMG other than wanting more work resources.
    • Ewout: A few comments on the tools; a tool now requires you to have V3 mappings, and some said they don’t have a lot of V3 knowledge on their committee. Grahame: Have seen questions about V2 and CDA mappings, but no questions about the RIM. Pharmacy said they had no problems creating the mappings. Discussion over various mappings and that methodology should take up the topic.
    • Feedback that workflow could be a real quagmire and people will be stuck working on it for a long time. Grahame: We’ve clearly laid down methodology and iteration. Lloyd: in terms of the workflow patterns there isn’t that much to change based on feedback. Small adjustments should be made quickly and will likely be ongoing but nothing as radical as the initial set of change. Ewout: We should monitor the levels of change. Lloyd: The bulk of how it works is settled in principal and is being exercised in Connectathon and some implementations. Josh: How do we know what’s in scope for this? Is there a set of goals and non-goals? Lorraine: There was a scope to begin with. Lloyd: Primarily around how do you get consistency between resources in the same category and how do we document the different ways that fulfillment process can be managed. Now we’re working on refining the patterns and how they’re actually being used, and are there places that we’re not seeing expected consistency or consistency where we wouldn’t expect it. Lorraine: There is some sentiment around lab and order being unstable.
    • Ewout: A governance issue came up – a WG had created extensions that were completely wrong according to another WG. Lorraine: May need to have some more coaching and education on how people are working together. Lloyd: That will also come out in QA process.
    • Patient is being considered for normative; directory resources are being evaluated.
    • Hans: for OO, Observation is being considered for Normative. Everything else is 5 or below.
    • John: All of his committees will not be putting anything forth for Normative. Uniformly trying for 3 with aspirations for 4, except for Consent.
    • Any feedback on QA dates and rules? Ewout: No, not much.
    • Paul: Nothing to report.
  • Product priorities
    • Grahame posted product priorities and has been receiving feedback. Is dropping JSON changes right now. Otherwise the priorities have been endorsed. Will revise original post and publish on FHIR PD blog. Not meant to drive committees not to do things that aren’t on the list, it’s more product positioning. Lorraine: More and more focus on IGs and profiles for specific use cases as opposed to primary development. Grahame agrees. Between now and September, we’ll be looking to do a lot of Connectathon streams in San Diego; looking to do a prototyping Connectathon; looking to beef up the clinical research stream and add support for bulk data extraction; looking to beef up a couple of other tracks around audit, testing, security; probably will put up a patient managed access to data track in association with a group called Society for Participatory Medicine. CIMI is coming to a point of producing stuff, so we’d like to draft a CIMI IG for FHIR for September. That is speculative but we’re going to try it. This relates to clinical content and clinical quality – seeing a swell of interesting ideas around building up the maturity process internally. We have a Code of Conduct for the community that was adopted with some wording changes by HL7. Now we’re lookin gat introducing a new one, which is a Code of Conduct for Leadership within the community – principally technical cochairs and editors. Working on it in partnership with overall HL7 leadership. Input is welcome.
    • Ewout notes that in September there will be a big focus on Subscription resource.
  • Feedback on QA rules
    • Should we have an educational opportunity for cochairs around quality processes? Could we do that? Lloyd: In principal we have Sunday Q4. Perhaps we can encourage people to think about Monday Q4 attendance as well as having a session on Sunday Q4 for cochairs, facilitators, and editors. Need to be clear about what this session is and who it is for. Some confusion over the roles.
    • ACTION: Grahame to reach out re: scheduling
  • Meeting report
    • Grahame will be doing a PD meeting report. Aims to send to FGB/FMG tomorrow. Please comment as soon as possible for posting on Monday afternoon. Core things to report on: give people who weren’t at the meeting a sense of the feel of the meeting and the accomplishments we made. Not seeking to cover a lot of content. Will include Normative candidate list and some discussion about workflow, Connectathon, etc. Looking for only 6 or 7 paragraphs. Will also feature tribute to Woody and welcomes any stories. Ewout notes that despite lower attendance there seemed to be high attendance at FHIR meetings. Dave Shaver notes that a lot of the education was cancelled, so people showed up to meetings instead or they didn’t come at all.
  • Date of next call for FMG: 2017-05-24
  • Other notes
    • IHE implementation guides are being developed.
    • ACTION: Add to upcoming FMG: Clarify IG vs. profile proposals
  • Adjourned at 5:38 pm