This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2018-10-24 FMG concall
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2018-mm-dd Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| Chair: | Note taker(s): Anne W. | |
| Quorum = chair + 4 | yes/no | |||||
| Co chairs | x | David Hay | x | Lloyd McKenzie | ||
| ex-officio | . | Wayne Kubick, CTO | ||||
| Members | Members | Members | Observers/Guests | ||||
| Hans Buitendijk | x | Brian Postlethwaite | x | Paul Knapp | x | Anne W., scribe | |
| x | Josh Mandel | John Moehrke | x | Brian Pech | |||
| x | Grahame Grieve | x | AMS, Eric Haas, Didi Davis | ||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 2018-10-17_FMG_concall
- Action items
- Grahame to put together something to describe a desired level of BR&R community engagement in order to own Substance
- Lloyd to draft a process for approving technically breaking changes that are believed not to impact any implementations and submit for review by FMG, MnM and SGB
- Anne to contact BR&R cochairs/modeling facilitator to ask them to update the resource relationships section of AdverseEvent
- Hans to reach out to OO on BiologicallyDerivedProduct at WGM
- Brian Post to add RIM scope and boundaries section to ChargeItemDefinition
- Hans to check with OO, CDS, and CQI about DeviceUseStatement at WGM
- Hans to check with Lorraine about EntryDefinition at WGM
- Brian Post to update Invoice
- Hans to follow up with OO on ObservationDefinition2 at WGM
- John to draft language regarding virtual Connectathons
- Anne to add US Core publication request to TSC e-vote
- Anne to add SMART Application Launch publication request
- David to set up track proposal pages
- Review Items
- FHIRcast PSS
- US FHIR Core Update to FHIR R4 PSS
- Review standard PSS form to suggest changes
- Discussion Topics
- Summary of plenary presentation about CIMI - Stan Huff
- FMM levels for extensions
- Criteria for inclusion of extensions in core vs. IGs
- What content is/isn't attracting ballot feedback
- Setting expectations around community establishment and real-world testing before content is allowed to go to ballot
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- SGB –
- MnM –
- FMG Liaisons –
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
- AOB (Any Other Business)
Minutes
- Roll Call
- Guests listed above
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 2018-10-17_FMG_concall
- MOTION to approve: Brian Pech/John
- VOTE: Hans, John abstain. Remaining in favor.
- Action items
- Grahame to put together something to describe a desired level of BR&R community engagement in order to own Substance
- Carry forward
- Lloyd to draft a process for approving technically breaking changes that are believed not to impact any implementations and submit for review by FMG, MnM and SGB
- Carry forward
- Anne to contact BR&R cochairs/modeling facilitator to ask them to update the resource relationships section of AdverseEvent
- Carry forward
- Hans to reach out to OO on BiologicallyDerivedProduct at WGM
- Progress being made. Not quite ready to come back from FMG. Carry forward
- Brian Post to add RIM scope and boundaries section to ChargeItemDefinition
- Carry forward
- Hans to check with OO, CDS, and CQI about DeviceUseStatement at WGM
- Not discussed at WGM – will follow up. Carry forward
- Hans to check with Lorraine about EntryDefinition at WGM
- Progress is being made to update it to CatalogEntry. Carry forward
- Brian Post to update Invoice
- Hans to follow up with OO on ObservationDefinition2 at WGM
- Will be able to discuss in the near future. Carry forward.
- John to draft language regarding virtual Connectathons
- Carry forward
- Anne to add US Core publication request to TSC e-vote
- Complete
- Anne to add SMART Application Launch publication request to TSC e-vote
- Was approved on Monday’s TSC call
- David to set up track proposal pages
- Complete
- Grahame to put together something to describe a desired level of BR&R community engagement in order to own Substance
- Review Items
- FHIRcast PSS
- Reviewed document. Hans: Might want to add context sharing to 3.f. Lloyd: Perhaps also CCOW on FHIR. Normative in May might be fast. Our normal FMM is that you’d have two STUs before Normative. Would like there to be really strong evidence to bypass that. At some point, ownership should probably transfer to FHIR-I, but there is no bandwidth at this point. Makes sense to continue with II at this time. Lloyd: Will in implementation guide really be produced? Leaning is to say this is a new product definition. Is definitely in the FHIR product family, but isn’t necessarily a FHIR implementation guide. This is a separate standard that relates to FHIR but isn’t on top of FHIR. John: Do expect they will profile resources. Lloyd: The difference is they’re also defining things that aren’t in the FHIR spec. Discussion over similar things like FHIRPath and other things like this that don’t strictly fall into FHIR. Almost need a new category. Will need to do a security review of this. In section 6.c., SDOs should be checked as DICOM will be interested.
- MOTION to approve: Hans/John
- VOTE: All in favor
- Reviewed document. Hans: Might want to add context sharing to 3.f. Lloyd: Perhaps also CCOW on FHIR. Normative in May might be fast. Our normal FMM is that you’d have two STUs before Normative. Would like there to be really strong evidence to bypass that. At some point, ownership should probably transfer to FHIR-I, but there is no bandwidth at this point. Makes sense to continue with II at this time. Lloyd: Will in implementation guide really be produced? Leaning is to say this is a new product definition. Is definitely in the FHIR product family, but isn’t necessarily a FHIR implementation guide. This is a separate standard that relates to FHIR but isn’t on top of FHIR. John: Do expect they will profile resources. Lloyd: The difference is they’re also defining things that aren’t in the FHIR spec. Discussion over similar things like FHIRPath and other things like this that don’t strictly fall into FHIR. Almost need a new category. Will need to do a security review of this. In section 6.c., SDOs should be checked as DICOM will be interested.
- US FHIR Core Update to FHIR R4 PSS
- Group reviews. Cosponsor should be determined by the time it comes to us – why is FHIR-I a candidate cosponsor? Patient Care, OO, PA, Pharmacy should be at minimum interested parties with the option of being cosponsors. May want to clarify regulatory requirements up until what cutoff, and make sure that TEF or US CDI is not excluded from this. 6.a. should say development done within HL7. In 6.c., should add CDS, HIS, regulatory agency, healthcare IT, equipment, other vendors (consumer-based apps)
- MOTION to approve pending clarification of cosponsors and interested parties: Hans/Brian Post
- VOTE: All in favor
- Group reviews. Cosponsor should be determined by the time it comes to us – why is FHIR-I a candidate cosponsor? Patient Care, OO, PA, Pharmacy should be at minimum interested parties with the option of being cosponsors. May want to clarify regulatory requirements up until what cutoff, and make sure that TEF or US CDI is not excluded from this. 6.a. should say development done within HL7. In 6.c., should add CDS, HIS, regulatory agency, healthcare IT, equipment, other vendors (consumer-based apps)
- Review standard PSS form to suggest changes
- Carry forward
- FHIRcast PSS
- Discussion Topics
- Summary of plenary presentation about CIMI - Stan Huff
- Stan presents slides from the plenary session in Baltimore. Wants constructive criticism from this group regarding what CIMI is doing. Both CIMI and FHIR were conceived at a WGM in 2011. CIMI wants to create interoperability through FHIR APIs and FHIR services. Trying to get anyone who has health data to make that available through FHIR. Want to use FHIR profiles derived from CIMI models to make it plug and play in heterogeneous systems. Grahame is in favor of plug and play, but not putting it in front of getting FHIR adopted. If you put plug and play the hurdle people have to get over to use FHIR, then FHIR would fail. But that’s not the same thing that we shouldn’t, by steps, move towards plug and play. Adaptation will always be required in the workflow. CIMI is working on logical models, putting them in a repository of shared models, then translating to FHIR profiles or other representations. HSPC is wholly dependent on CIMI for models. Getting engagement through CIIC. CIIC provides requirements, then CIMI creates logical models. Clinicians verify what data should be collected, how the data should be modeled, and what the data means. CIMI works with domain WGs, professional societies, and others to define content and ensure technical correctness. Not trying to mandate this; we’re saying we really want true plug and play interoperability. It’s a coalition of the willing to say we want to work together to provide this level of interoperability. Working to become less abstract and philosophical; pushing hard to produce content, get the content used, find out if it has the desired value, and make progress and change. Working with medical societies to test the models.
- David: What about decision support logic? Where does that fit in? Stan: CIMI would not make the logic. Arden Syntax and others would make the logic. What we hope is that CIMI models/FHIR profiles would be the references to data in that logic.
- Stan presents slides from the plenary session in Baltimore. Wants constructive criticism from this group regarding what CIMI is doing. Both CIMI and FHIR were conceived at a WGM in 2011. CIMI wants to create interoperability through FHIR APIs and FHIR services. Trying to get anyone who has health data to make that available through FHIR. Want to use FHIR profiles derived from CIMI models to make it plug and play in heterogeneous systems. Grahame is in favor of plug and play, but not putting it in front of getting FHIR adopted. If you put plug and play the hurdle people have to get over to use FHIR, then FHIR would fail. But that’s not the same thing that we shouldn’t, by steps, move towards plug and play. Adaptation will always be required in the workflow. CIMI is working on logical models, putting them in a repository of shared models, then translating to FHIR profiles or other representations. HSPC is wholly dependent on CIMI for models. Getting engagement through CIIC. CIIC provides requirements, then CIMI creates logical models. Clinicians verify what data should be collected, how the data should be modeled, and what the data means. CIMI works with domain WGs, professional societies, and others to define content and ensure technical correctness. Not trying to mandate this; we’re saying we really want true plug and play interoperability. It’s a coalition of the willing to say we want to work together to provide this level of interoperability. Working to become less abstract and philosophical; pushing hard to produce content, get the content used, find out if it has the desired value, and make progress and change. Working with medical societies to test the models.
- FMM levels for extensions
- Carry forward
- Criteria for inclusion of extensions in core vs. IGs
- Carry forward
- What content is/isn't attracting ballot feedback
- Carry forward
- Setting expectations around community establishment and real-world testing before content is allowed to go to ballot
- Carry forward
- Summary of plenary presentation about CIMI - Stan Huff
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- Sandy reports that the next Connectathon is in 12 weeks. Would like to put out the call for track proposals with an initial due date of 11/7. Should merge like tracks and cap the number of tracks. Brian Post asks if we’ll be moving to Confluence? Sandy reports we’ll do that before the May event.
- SGB –
- No report
- MnM –
- No report
- FMG Liaisons –
- No report
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- Adjourned at 5:30 pm Eastern
Next Steps
| Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) | |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2018 Health Level Seven® International
