This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2018-05-17 FMG WGM
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: Saal 2, Heumarkt |
Date: 2018-05-17 Time: 3:30 pm | |
| Chair: | Note taker(s): Anne W. | |
| Quorum = chair + 4 | yes/no | |||||
| Co chairs | David Hay | x | Lloyd McKenzie | |||
| ex-officio | . | 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 | Regrets | Brian Pech | ||
| x | Grahame Grieve | x | Ewout Kramer, numerous other guests | ||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Discussion Topics
- Updated PSS - FHIR Resources for Evidence-Based Medicine Knowledge Assets (EBMonFHIR)
- Criteria for inclusion of profiles and valuesets in FHIR Core
- Outcomes of the week
- Next steps
Minutes
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- MOTION to approve: Grahame/Hans
- VOTE: All in favor
- Discussion Topics
- Updated PSS - FHIR Resources for Evidence-Based Medicine Knowledge Assets (EBMonFHIR)
- Group reviews updated document that was originally reviewed earlier in the week. The project will identify and define the initial set of key FHIR resources related to the domain of clinical research evidence and clinical practice guideline development. Instead of jumping to comment ballot quickly, this will now go to Connectathon in September and January, followed by STU ballot in 2019May. Lloyd: Are you expecting to develop new resources as part of this work, or leveraging existing? Brian Alpert: That’s part of the project, to evaluate that and figure it out. We will leverage existing as we can. Lloyd: If you’re gong to be creating new resources you’ll be tied to the ballot cycle of the core spec, which will be looking to publish sometime in 2020. Grahame: I was originally concerned about timelines and lack of community involvement/engagement. The most important thing is letting the community drive the process.
- MOTION to approve: Grahame/Hans
- Grahame notes that they should look for participants outside of the USA as it is a Universal project
- VOTE: All in favor
- Ballot process
- Want to clarify ballot process for the next ballot. Likely that we will pass the Normative ballot with some substantive changes that will then go back out to ballot. Patient and Observation won’t have substantive change. Infrastructure and Conformance will pass with substantive change. What will we do with Patient and Observation for the next cycle?
- There’s a possibility of a committee-generated change as well. Hans notes that everybody needs to withdraw their negative; if they don’t, then there is a recirculation ballot just on those items. If there is talk of adding additional items being added to ballot that weren’t part of the original ballot, what does that mean? It increases the risk that in the end, we have to go to ballot again. Needs to be reviewed with ANSI rules and communicated. Lloyd: The rule will probably be that any additions into the specification will have to go In as STU. Can’t add new content into the scope of the normative specifications. If we add elements and sections, then it will be STU. Hans: That needs to be spelled out very clearly. Grahame: If the committee has discovered an issue internally and that issue is a substantive change to the normative content, the committee can make that change but must go back to ballot. Grahame: FMG needs to write up a summary, get it OKed, and get it out to the cochairs, ballot pool, membership, etc. New operations or elements will be flagged as STU. Discussion over how the items will be flagged. Grahame: From hereon in, any editors resolving tasks that result in substantive change must notify Grahame.
- ACTION: Lloyd will draft a google doc on the topic for FMG/Austin’s review
- There’s a possibility of a committee-generated change as well. Hans notes that everybody needs to withdraw their negative; if they don’t, then there is a recirculation ballot just on those items. If there is talk of adding additional items being added to ballot that weren’t part of the original ballot, what does that mean? It increases the risk that in the end, we have to go to ballot again. Needs to be reviewed with ANSI rules and communicated. Lloyd: The rule will probably be that any additions into the specification will have to go In as STU. Can’t add new content into the scope of the normative specifications. If we add elements and sections, then it will be STU. Hans: That needs to be spelled out very clearly. Grahame: If the committee has discovered an issue internally and that issue is a substantive change to the normative content, the committee can make that change but must go back to ballot. Grahame: FMG needs to write up a summary, get it OKed, and get it out to the cochairs, ballot pool, membership, etc. New operations or elements will be flagged as STU. Discussion over how the items will be flagged. Grahame: From hereon in, any editors resolving tasks that result in substantive change must notify Grahame.
- Want to clarify ballot process for the next ballot. Likely that we will pass the Normative ballot with some substantive changes that will then go back out to ballot. Patient and Observation won’t have substantive change. Infrastructure and Conformance will pass with substantive change. What will we do with Patient and Observation for the next cycle?
- Outcomes of the week
- Josh: Nothing to add
- John: The only thing he’s heard is the question around guidance to committees dealing with Normative content and measures to use to determine if content should be Normative or not. Grahame: Pulling back content should have a very good reason.
- Brian Post: In PA we got through all normative trackers. Took VerificationResult around to a number of committees and got some information for further consideration.
- Paul: Nothing specific
- Hans: OO hasn’t completed Observation yet, but everything looks like things that we can address without substantive. BR&R has picked up ownership of Substance so FMG needs to vote on that. Some progress in Device area. Would like to collapse Device and DeviceComponent into one thing. Discussion over splitting into kind and instance. Discussion over working on V2 data elements not accounted for in FHIR.
- ACTION: Add BR&R ownership of Substance to future agenda
- Ewout: PH did reconciliation on the excel sheet in January and is wondering how to proceed. Lloyd: If it’s FHIR artifact it must be in Gforge. They should coordinate with Josh and Lloyd.
- Lloyd: There will be some work to leverage CIMI content within FHIR.
- Grahame: For a ballot the size of what we took Normative, we got less comments than in the last ballot, which shows the value of all the preparative work we did. Negative comment resolutions have been collegial. There are plenty of open issues that we need to take up. There is a roundtable meeting after this session for cross committee issues.
- Updated PSS - FHIR Resources for Evidence-Based Medicine Knowledge Assets (EBMonFHIR)
- Resource proposals
- VerificationResult: Has been updated with input from a variety of committees this week. Hans brings a question regarding whether it could be used in the regulatory space. Brian will pass it through the team. Grahame: The characterization of provenance is incorrect. Grahame thinks of Provenance as the result. Brian states it’s about the process. Grahame feels as though it may need to be renamed and add more information about the value proposition. There should be more differentiation between this and Provenance. Brian states they are going to put info in the header to describe why you would use one vs. the other. Grahame notes some overlap with the EBM project we just looked at. Grahame would like to have them sit down with PC to hash out some some of these issues.
- Invoice: Group reviews. Discussion over which countries would use this? Couple of European countries, China. Grahame: If it belongs in the space of another SDO, we shouldn’t do it, and this one seems to be. Discussion over relationship with ChargeItem. This step is the preparation of the invoice. Paul: It could perhaps be better named as InvoiceSupport.
- MOTION to approve: Brian Post/Hans
- VOTE: All in favor
- Criteria for inclusion of profiles and valuesets in FHIR Core
- ProductPlan: Specifically targeted at insurance. Grahame notes that there are many types of products – should reflect Insurance rather than the more general “product.” Lloyd is concerned about coverage and the overlap between the two. Paul states that coverage is the list of identifiers that is on the insurance card. It doesn’t contain detailed benefit information like this does. A future resource will give specific benefits for an individual. Will need to work out a new name.
- Adjourned at 5:00 pm Eastern
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2018 Health Level Seven® International
