This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "July 11 - Clinical Maturity - options"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
* Discussion about the above options. | * Discussion about the above options. | ||
* Determined: | * Determined: | ||
− | ** | + | **Implementor resistance at this time should not deter the current work |
+ | **We agree clinical fitness testing should be applied - the what and how clinical fitness is the work to be done. | ||
+ | ** There are different levels of clinical maturity evaluation needed. | ||
+ | ***Initial - the resource is brand new, (general discussion of the proposed resource against use cases) | ||
+ | ***mid - the resource is .... (spreadsheet criteria) | ||
+ | ***late - how the resource is being implemented. (review of implementations - and where there are issues - CCDA implentathon model?) | ||
+ | |||
+ | how formal do we want to make the process. |
Revision as of 21:45, 11 July 2017
- Back to: Clinicians on FHIR - Sept 2017, San Diego
- Back to Clinician on FHIR 2017
Attendees:
- Stephen Chu
- Emma Jones
- Russ Leftwich
- Jay Lyle
- Laura Heermann
Ápology':
Meeting Notes from June 27:
- Discussions on email from Lloyd McKenzie on:
- ~ QA Criteria for FHIR artifacts and IGs
- ~ The criteria are comprehesnive. But will be difficult to fit the clinical maturity criteria into the set of conformance and QA criteria
- Discussions on two different approaches:
- ~ Option 1: Continue to work on clinical maturity spreadsheet.
- ~ Then work out way(s) to fit the maturity criteria into
- * Risk: unlikely that a fit is possible
- ~ Or use the maturity criteria as a separate assessment in addition to the existing FHIR maturity levels (Level 0 to 6)
- * Risk: implementer resistance. There are expressions on preference to have only one set of maturity assessment criteria
- ~ Option 2: Formalise a set of robust and useful clinical use cases, and use them to test FHIR resources
- * Advantage: may be fitted into FMM3 and FMM4 of the FHIR maturity model
- * Issues: may not be as comprehensive as the Clinical Maturity Model (as use cases testing is one of the Clinical Maturity criteria)
- ~ There is suggestion to identify a small number of FHIR clinical resources (e.g. Care Plan, Care Team) for testing Option 2 to determine how best this option works
- Decision:
- ~ To present the options to a broader audience/participants after at the July 11 Conference call.
- Clinical Maturity Model: Early draft:
- Discussion about the above options.
- Determined:
- Implementor resistance at this time should not deter the current work
- We agree clinical fitness testing should be applied - the what and how clinical fitness is the work to be done.
- There are different levels of clinical maturity evaluation needed.
- Initial - the resource is brand new, (general discussion of the proposed resource against use cases)
- mid - the resource is .... (spreadsheet criteria)
- late - how the resource is being implemented. (review of implementations - and where there are issues - CCDA implentathon model?)
how formal do we want to make the process.