June 6 - Clinical Mautirty Discussions
Jump to navigation Jump to search
- Stephen Chu (chair, scribe)
- Emma Jones
- Joe Quinn
- Discussion on the need to develop and apply clinical maturity model to FHIR clinical resources assessment as value added contributions to the FHIR community at large
- - create clinical maturity model
- - publish results of FHIR clinical resources assessments using the clinical maturity model
- - published document/wiki as one-stop-shop for FHIR and clinical informatics communities
- Question raised on having one maturity model instead of two
- - Current FHIR FMG has published a FHIR maturity level
- - If a single maturity model is to be adopted, the clinical maturity criteria may fit into Level 3 and 4 of the current model:
- ^ Level 3 - (Level 2) PLUS the artifact has been verified by the work group as meeting the Trial Use Quality Guidelines and has been subject to a round of formal balloting; has at least 10 implementer comments recorded in the tracker drawn from at least 3 organizations resulting in at least one substantive change
- ^ Level 4 - (Level 3) PLUS the artifact has been tested across its scope (see below), published in a formal publication (e.g. a FHIR Release), and implemented in multiple prototype projects. As well, the responsible work group agrees the resource is sufficiently stable to require implementer consultation for subsequent non-backward compatible changes.
- Issue on backward compatibility will complicate this approach - i.e. how does this affect/what does it mean to the FHIR resources with maturity level determined using current FHIR maturity model?
- Clinical maturity model - should it be an ordinal or boolean model?
- - A model model makes it easier to fit into current FHIR maturity model
- - An ordinal model is more clinically useful
- - To develop the clinical maturity model as first step
- - Assess how it may fit into the current FHIR maturity model
- - Assess the pros and cons of an ordinal or boolean model