PIC:FORUM

Return to the >> Process Improvement Committee

Open Forum

Project Information

This Wiki page is used to manage suggestions from HL7 members for improvements to the HL7 Processes.

Project Lead(s)

• Helen Stevens (helen.stevens@shaw.ca)

Project Timeline

• Ongoing project with review of all outstanding items on bi-weekly conference calls.

Project Working Documents

Media:PIC Forum Tracking.xls - Last update yyyy/mm/dd

Project Requirements Gathering

Instructions:

To add a requirement for consideration by the committee edit the WIKI directly yourself following the template provided or email the PIC List Service (pic@lists.hl7.org)

Requirement Template:

1. enter requirement
   • Source: enter your name and email address
   • Submitted on: enter the date of your submission
   • Committee Comments: leave blank
   • Status: Entered

Requirements:

1. Fix problems with ballot worksheet ballot disposition options.

   Not persuasive with mod - No guidance for use provided

   Answered - Redundant with "Considered-Question Answered"?

   Refered and tracked - Spelling error in dropdown

   Pending decision from other Committee - Instructions are: Pending input from other Committee which is not equivalent.

   • Source: Altamore, Rita A (DOH) [1]
   • Submitted on: January 19, 2010 email to Don Lloyd
   • Status: In progress
   • Committee Comments:
     • Feb 4th Call: Committee agress to get the changes made. HQ (Don Loyd) will update the ballot worksheet.
       • Not persuasive with mod - Add instructions along the lines of: "Comment was considered non-persuasive by the committee; however, the committee has agreed to make a modification to the material based on this comment. For example, adding additional explanatory text.
       • Answered - Remove
       • Refered and tracked - Fix spelling error in dropdown
       • Pending decision from other Committee - Change instructions to: Pending an action/decision or input from another committee. Question will be reassessed when other committee provides a response.
2. Need instructions/ worksheet for Peer Review process. See email Media:RE Peer Review Process - Proposed New Form.txt Worksheet: Media: HL7 Peer Review Comment Form.zip
   • Source: Ron Parker (rparker@infoway-inforoute.ca)
   • Submitted on: Jan 27, 2010 email to PIC co-chairs
   • Status: In progress
   • Committee Comments:
     • Feb 4th Call: Committee discussed the issue and decided the following. Helen to compose email response to Ron and cc PIC list. The following is a synopsis of the PIC discussions during the call.
       • The worksheet provided by Ron is fine to use for a peer review - Frieda will send Ron some typo corrections.
       • PIC recognizes that the Peer Review process is especially helpful for committees where the membership is 'closed' such as the ArB. This will allow the general HL7 membership the opportunity to review draft materials and provide feedback through a semi-formalized mechanism. Whilst the ArB membership is closed, it is recognized that attendance at the ArB meetings is open to all HL7 members and the ArB actively works with non ArB members on developing materials.
       • As much as is possible, the Peer Review process should follow the guidelines of non-normative ballots. They should be properly announced, available to all members, and transparently managed. The committee/WG that is issuing the Peer Review should be responsible for announcing the review, producing and publishing the materials (with assistance from support WGs as necessary) and for receiving and reconciling all the comments received. Comment reconciliation should be done in a fashion similar to the ballot reconciliation process. The ArB should invite any commenter to attend the ArB meetings as a guest during the reconciliation activities so that the commenter can speak to their comment and ensure that open transparent dialogue can occur.
       • PIC recognizes that one of the challenges of a peer review hosted by a committee with closed membership is the resolution of any disputes regarding the reconciliation of comments. Consequently, it is recommended that if there is a dispute or disagreement between the commenter and the ArB and a solution cannot be reach internally – then the dispute will be documented and brought to the TSC to address. PIC feels that this is an appropriate role for the TSC because the ArB is a TSC managed committee.
3. Create schedule like the publishing schedule, for HL7 WGM's - possibly even a single combined schedule.
   • Source: Julian, Anthony [2]
   • Submitted on: March 11, 2010 email to listserv
   • Status: HQ staff investigating. Have looked at Google calendars and is seeking a solution that will work well with Outlook.
   • Committee Comments: PIC generally supports the idea, but would like HQ to weigh in on whether maintenance of this format is something they can take on. Would like to clean up the legend and symbols.