FHIR Consent March 11, 2016
|Member Name||Member Name||Member Name|
|.||Johnathan ColemanCBCC Co-Chair||x||Kathleen Connor FM Co-Chair||x||John MoehrkeSecurity Co-Chair|
|x||Alexander Mense||.||Russell McDonell||x||Tarik Idris|
|.||Marty Prahl||.||Diana Proud-Madruga||.||Pat Pyette|
|.||Suzanne Gonzales-Webb CBCC Co-Chair||x||David Staggs||x||Glen Marshall|
|.||Rob Horn||x||Beth Pumo||.||William Kinsley|
- Cochair introduction, roll, agenda and FHIR Consent February 26, 2016 minutes
- Report on FM's review of pre-applied changes to FM CP 9533
- Discuss CP 9568 CP 9568 Revise ConsentDirective.signer modeling issues raised by John and responded to by Kathleen.
- Discuss progress on Plan for completing the draft of the PCD IG
- What kind of a test plan would we like to see at a FHIR connectathon?
- Any changes expecting to be tested at the next FHIR Connectathon need to be submitted into the build by March 27th.
- NOT OFFICIAL as no co-chair from CBCC
- Agenda and Minute approval...deferred
- ActConsentDirectiveType codes
- RE Pre-applied amendments to FM CP 9533 to change cardinality for Contract.signer described above and pre-applied here] was not approved.
Plan is to only change Signature cardinality in the official version of Contract.signer to 1..* Rationale: We could not come up with any plausible use case were a signer to a contract would not also be a party. Any Contract.signer is a party to the Contract and must be specified. Paul moved, Andy seconded 0-0-3.
- Would be good to put together a high-level consent test script for FHIR connectathon. Then specialize this with either Document Sharing workflow, or DAF/Argonaut workflow. This way we get people testing something they want to test, and we get them to test consent.