This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "June 6 - Clinical Mautirty Discussions"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StephenChu (talk | contribs) (Created page with " <br> '''Attendees''': * Stephen Chu (chair, scribe) * Emma Jones * Joe Quinn * ... <br> '''Meeting Notes''':") |
StephenChu (talk | contribs) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | * Back to: [[Clinicians on FHIR - Sept 2017, San Diego]] | |
| + | * Back to [[Clinician on FHIR 2017]] | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
'''Meeting Notes''': | '''Meeting Notes''': | ||
| + | |||
| + | * 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 | ||
| + | :: [https://build.fhir.org/versions.html#maturity The 6 Level FHIR Matuirty] | ||
| + | : - 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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Suggestion: | ||
| + | : - 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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | <br> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:19, 13 June 2017
- Back to: Clinicians on FHIR - Sept 2017, San Diego
- Back to Clinician on FHIR 2017
Attendees:
- Stephen Chu (chair, scribe)
- Emma Jones
- Joe Quinn
- ...
Meeting Notes:
- 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
- Suggestion:
- - 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
