2018-01-29 CDAMG WGM

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

back to CDA Management Group main page

HL7 CDAMG Minutes

Location: Pelican - Riverside Bldg.

Date: 2018-01-29
Time: 3:30 PM
Facilitator Brett Note taker(s) Lisa
Attendee Name


X George Dixon
X Jean Duteau
X Rick Geimer
X Kai Heitmann
X Brett Marquard
X Linda Michaelsen
X Dale Nelson
X Lisa Nelson
X Andrew Statler
Quorum: Chair +3

Agenda & Minutes

  • Welcome Guests: Cynthia Canteen Harbor (CDC NHSN), Russel Ott (VA)
  • Agenda review
  • Approve Minutes of 2018-01-05_CDAMG_Conference_Call
  • Review items
    • Orthodontic Attachment PSS
      • Russ Ott presented a new PSS for Orthodontic Claims Attachment IG. Positioned as "based on C-CDA R2.1" It is subordinate under the Claims Attachment IG. This project is sponsored under the Attachments WG. "Inspired by the DOD as the "document receiver". Document creator would be a Dental EMR. 2-year STU. Russ will check with IHE Dental Domain to see what has been done there. Russ will get DOD to sign on as an implementer. Payer organization could be.
        • Motion to approve the PSS: Rick/Jean [0-0-8] Approved.
  • Discussion Topics
    • Asset - Status, and ongoing management.
    • SWOT
      • Reviewed the SWOT drafted in SDWG earlier in the day
      • Generalized the SWOT to make it less US Specific
      • Does the CMG Scope cover the HL7 Affiliates or not?
      • Could we review the SWOT more frequently
    • What are the requirements of a CDA Templates Registry - prep Tuesday Q4 discussion
    • Discuss the envisioned "superceeding" of CDA R2.0 with CDA R2.1 what it means to ANSI and HL7 Publishing and Implementer Use
      • CMG will revisit this issue in the context of the Product Roadmap.
      • Jean asked: What is the expectation for CDA R2.0 after CDA R2.1 is released?
      • Linda asked: What happens to C-CDA if CDA R2.0 is superceeded by R2.1
    • Create a check list procedure for CMG members to use when reviewing PSSs, Document CMG PSS Review process to be followed (Jean)
      • Why should CMG get inserted so late in the process. Should we aim to get involved sooner - at the NIB - to approve when things get started. From a quality perspective - should we be injected sooner. At the NIB, could we get involved then. When is the right time? Maybe two weeks prior to preliminary content has to come to CMG to review the work. CMG is responsible for making sure that the sponsoring workgroup is the primary check of the QA criteria, then CMG reviews to make sure the Workgroup has enforced the QA criteria accurately. Key is: Is this work a duplicate? Is it being done by the right group? Are produced artifacts meeting the defined quality.
      • Should we push back and not have CMG be a step in the review process?
      • Motion to request a check box be added on the Publication Request to show that we have done the review with the submitting party. Andrew/Rick [0-0-8] Approved.
    • George Asked: How do we manage quality problems for IG's that have already been publishes? We agreed to add this to the Weakness list in SWOT.

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
  • Approved the Minutes from 2018-01-05
  • Approved the Orthodonic Attachment PSS
  • Approved requesting a box on the Publication Request for CMG Approval
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved