This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

CMHAFF call, THURSDAY, July 20

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Attendees: David Tao, Nathan Botts, Gora Datta, Matthew Graham, Gary Dickinson

  • Review of recommendations re French Good Practice Guidelines -- we reviewed some of Adamu's, but deferred the rest (Frank's work is in progress).
  • Debrief from David on his review of the Andalusian Guidelines. Many items have been added, especially in the "Informing Users" and "Risk Management" categories.
  • Consider points in latest draft of cMHAFF: File:CMHAFF STU Ballot Draft.docx
  • Decide appropriate way to word conformance statements (see comments on page 20 and 25 of document). We decided to be "descriptive" (what should be done) rather than "prescriptive" (who should do it). So we will use the passive voice, as the original cMHAFF did. However, we will add an "Actor" column to suggest who the actor or actors might be, who should be responsible for the criterion. We will also add a "Recipient (Acted Upon)" column, in case it proves useful.
  • New structure of cMHAFF document (new categories, classification of apps into levels)
    • Format options for the new cMHAFF
      • Same as published in previous cMHAFF -- tables
      • Bulleted Conformance Statements (like sections 3.2.x in current draft)
      • French H.A.S. GPG format (summary figures/tables followed by details for each criterion)
    • We agreed to keep the tabular structure of original cMHAFF. While it is different from some other HL7 standards, it has similarities to the EHRS-FM, and provides some advantages in identifying conformance strength and actors.
  • We agreed to create a new Product/Technical Support section. David added it as 3.2.4. (David subsequently realized, from checking an older version of cMHAFF, that it DID have a "Customer Support" section, which had been accidentally deleted in the process of refomatting the document. David has now restored it to the latest cMHAFF draft.)
  • We agreed to move most references to the back section of the document, rather than having them in-line with the standard itself. To keep the list of references from becoming huge and unwieldy, we will prioritize those documents from which cMHAFF directly or indirectly pulled material, rather than every "good document" that someone suggests in the space of security, privacy, usability, etc. cMHAFF can also borrow from the EHRS-FM in saying "according to applicable local jurisdiction" or words to that effect.
  • We will discuss the possibility of adding a cMHAFF working session at the San Diego Working Group Meeting, perhaps on Thursday Q3.
  • Note: NO MEETING ON JULY 27th (David on vacation)