2016-06-01 SGB Conference Call

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes Location: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538465637		Date: 2016-06-01 Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator	Paul/Calvin	Note taker(s)	Anne

Attendee	Name
	Calvin Beebe
x	Lorraine Constable
x	Russ Hamm
x	Tony Julian
x	Paul Knapp
x	Austin Kreisler
x	Wayne Kubick
	Mary Kay McDaniel
x	Ken McCaslin
x	Rik Smithies
x	Rob McClure
no quorum definition

Agenda

• Agenda review
• Review minutes of 2016-05-25_SGB_Conference_Call
• Homework
  • Forward risks to the group for consideration
• Action Items
  • Lorraine to send risk and precept material that Ron put together to the group
• Discussion Topics
  • HTA Followup Discussion
  • Risk assessment
  • Defining the role of product director - joint with ARB
    • Need to invite Grahame to discuss
  • CDA Product Family Formation
  • Further discussion on SGB Guidance on IG Conformance Statements (from 2016-02-22 TSC Call)
  • Role of Steering Divisions
  • FHIR Governance Board
  • Balloting standards which are cross-product family

Minutes

• Agenda review
• Review minutes of 2016-05-25_SGB_Conference_Call
  • Approved via general consent
• Homework
  • Forward risks to the group for consideration
• Action Items
  • Lorraine to send risk and precept material that Ron put together to the group
  • Complete
• Discussion Topics
  • HTA Followup Discussion
    • Rob McClure here to represent. Heather sent two documents for SGB review. Currency of Value Set Content document was the result of discussions from SNOMED. They had an expectation that any value sets that included SNOMED concepts would be reviewed every five years. HL7 needs to gain experience with maintenance of active standards and any impact on older standards. Perhaps SGB can weigh in on how that is managed. There is a risk that we have standards in the marketplace that include terminologies that are no longer available or supported; to manage that risk we add in the precept of review processes. Discussion over expansion sets - have to change value set definitions to reflect current version. Paul: We will take these documents and pull the requirements from them and coordinate with HTA to make sure we've captured them appropriately. Rob: Another unclear implication is what is the right expected behavior of systems when you're updating value sets but want to retrieve older data? Paul: not sure that is something for SGB to do; SGB can say that it needs to be done but not how to do it. May be different across families. Rob: Precept that needs to be followed should be the same no matter what. Probably Vocab should figure out the how. Paul: Might actually be something that we have ARB look at also.
    • Looked at licensing guidance from HTA. When you publish, you must communicate to implementers that they must satisfy the license requirements that are put out by the terminology authority for them. Paul: There are many risks involved here. Rob: Great implication on implementers. Ken: All we need to do is ask for sample codes to explain how it should be applied within the standard as examples and let them know they can get them through license in the appropriate fashion. Rob: Disagrees that it would be successful. Paul: We should have a precept that requires that the process has been gone through. Rob: We should expect that any WGs that want to use the terminology standard have access to the full standard. Ken: Goal should be that there should be example structures to help people manage the process. SNOMED should provide training. Wayne: IHTSDO has provided us with this already. Rob: This document focuses only on SNOMED. The IHTSDO arrangement helps clarify for implementers what their expectations are in terms of what they should do when they decide to implement a standard. Simple solution would be if you're going to be using a code system in the context of creating a standard, you should have access to that system and have HL7 support that. At the implementation phase, what guidance do we give the WGs to make sure the implementation is as easy as possible? IHTSDO has taken steps to enable this through licensing. Ken: we should give WGs direction that they reach out to HTA if there is no licensing agreement. We don't want every WG managing the license agreement. Wayne: a possible short term thing would be to put a disclaimer statement in every published item regarding licensing - making it clear to people that licensing is their responsibility when they implement a standard. We can post the policies with a permalink. Paul: The precept to manage the risk is that in each of our publications that a family has a boiler plate which, in a consistent manner, calls out those code sets that require licensing.
    • Paul: how do jurisdictional regulations intersect with this? Rob: We're saying that the five year review is a minimum based on HL7's expectations. In the context of the use of the standard, if a regulatory body needs to see something more frequent, they would need to come and participate in the WG and dictate the cycle. It is also a binding issue; work ongoing on applying in a product family independent fashion.
      • ACTION: Paul and Ken to take document and identify risks and issues
      • ACTION: Anne to pull out TRAC spreadsheet and distribute; all to review
• Adjourend at 11:02 am Eastern

Meeting Outcomes

Actions

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 20160608 SGB Conference Call

© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved

1. Work Groups will do their own governance if there is nothing else available. 2. There will be inconsistent governance across all products, therefore giving an inconsistent feel of products within HL7 across product families. 3. Product lines will create unrelated governance to their product family(ies) that they are adopting their lines on and giving external people unclear understanding of HL7 Governance. 4. Without governance, people will do whatever seems to be right for them at the time they are working on a project.