This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "20160615 FMG concall"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
 
|colspan="4" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| '''yes/no'''
 
|colspan="4" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| '''yes/no'''
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Co chairs|| ||David Hay || ||Lloyd McKenzie
+
| Co chairs||Regrets ||David Hay || ||Lloyd McKenzie
 
|-
 
|-
−
| ex-officio|| ||Woody Beeler,<br/> Dave Shaver <br/>FGB Co-chairs||.||John Quinn, CTO
+
| ex-officio|| ||Woody Beeler,<br/> Dave Shaver <br/>FGB Co-chairs||.||Wayne Kubick, CTO
 
|}
 
|}
 
<!--  -->
 
<!--  -->
Line 22: Line 22:
 
| colspan="2"| Members ||colspan="2"|Members||colspan="2"|Members ||colspan="2"|Observers/Guests
 
| colspan="2"| Members ||colspan="2"|Members||colspan="2"|Members ||colspan="2"|Observers/Guests
 
|-
 
|-
−
| || Hans Buitendijk|| ||Brian Postlethwaite  || ||Paul Knapp || || Anne W., scribe
+
|x || Hans Buitendijk|| x||Brian Postlethwaite  || x||Paul Knapp ||x|| Anne W., scribe
 
|-
 
|-
−
| ||Josh Mandel  || ||John Moehrke|| ||Brian Pech || ||  
+
| ||Josh Mandel  ||x||John Moehrke||x ||Brian Pech || ||  
 
|-
 
|-
−
| ||  || || || || ||.||<!--guest-->  
+
|x ||Grahame Grieve || || || || ||.||<!--guest-->  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}
  
 
==Agenda==
 
==Agenda==
 +
*Called to order at 4:05 pm Eastern
 +
*Agenda Check
 +
**Add mappings and V2 event mappings question from PA
 +
**MOTION by Brian Post to approve agenda; second by Brian Pech
 +
**VOTE: all in favor
 +
*Minutes from [[20160608_FMG_concall]]
 +
**MOTION by Brian Post to approve; second by Brian Pech
 +
**VOTE: all in favor
 +
*Action items
 +
**Lloyd to coordinate with Bryn on DecisionSupport proposal completion (target: mid-June) - update
 +
***add for next week
 +
**Lloyd to update explanation on how to read the reports spreadsheet and see if he can get the emails to work properly; then send an email to the co-chairs to review/address the stale column
 +
***partially complete; add for next week
 +
**Hans to reach out to CDS for agreement to transfer ownership of DeviceUseRequest to Pharmacy/Patient Care/OO
 +
*** Generally positive but don't have final vote. Should be Pharmacy or OO who takes it on. Hans reports it would be OO. Just waiting for CDS agreement
 +
***Update next week
 +
**Liaisons to reach out to WGs and report back on WG intentions for FMM levels
 +
***PA is making progress
 +
***add for next week
 +
**David/Brian to send out reminder regarding Connectathon proposal due date of 6/15
 +
***Complete. Will take a look at the end of today's call
 +
*Approval Items
 +
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/10074/14321/HL7%20Project%20Scope%20Statement%20MnM%20FHIR.docx MnM PSS]
 +
***add for next week - pending
 +
**[http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ConsentDirective_FHIR_Resource_Proposal ConsentDirective Resource Proposal]
 +
***Grahame agreed last week  to put together a draft of a single resource covering Consent & ConsentTracker
 +
***add for next week
 +
 +
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/10108/14405/PASS%20Healthcare%20Audit%20Services%20Project%20Scope%20Statement%20Draft%20v1%202.docx Privacy, Access, and Security Services (PASS) Healthcare Audit Services Conceptual Model] - TSC commented that this should to go FMG due to response in risks section: "Ensure resources included on this project who are familiar with FHIR/Restful requirements. Maintain an open line of communication with FHIR resource/requirement developers. Ensure deliverables are reviewed by FHIR resource/requirement developers."
 +
***Discussion over relationship to FHIR and why it is mentioned in the risks. Should be separate PSS when they define a specification for how PASS can or should be implemented in FHIR. Probably don't need to approve as it's not applicable. Lloyd isn't sure there's a process to waive approval when something references FHIR so we should probably just approve it.
 +
****MOTION by John to approve; second by Brian.
 +
****VOTE: Josh abstains. Remaining in favor.
 +
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/10014/14422/HL7%20Project%20Scope%20Statement_DAF_2016_PSS_v4.docx Updated DAF FHIR IG PSS]
 +
***Lloyd declares a conflict of interest
 +
***Project doesn't mention where it is to be published. Options are under HL7.org, ONC site, or somewhere else. Would be balloted separately. Publishing location would have to be addressed. Project dependencies should list FHIR core ballot.
 +
***MOTION by Brian Post to approve; second by Hans
 +
***VOTE: all in favor
 +
*Discussion Items:
 +
**Additional text for [http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Maturity_Model FMM Levels page]
 +
***Proposed text: In some cases, a resource may have components or dependencies that are a lower level than the resource overall. For example, a resource may have been well tested, with the exception of one or two data elements which are "new" or that have limited production use due to the distribution of early adopters. In these cases, a "maturity note" will be provided that highlights areas of the resource that are considered "less mature" than the resource as a whole. Allows us to call out specific pieces of the resource that are suspect as to whether they are at the same level as the resource as a whole.
 +
***Discussion over where to place this text/how to communicate. Paul notes it may be very confusing to people.
 +
***MOTION by Paul to approve change; second by Brian Post
 +
***VOTE: all in favor
 +
**Mappings and V2 event mappings question from PA
 +
***How do we deal with event level stuff? Lloyd: ties into workflow. When you have value sets you can include mappings and find them fairly easily in the spreadsheet or use concept maps if not using spreadsheet. Question of what you should be mapping to is another thing; where do we want this event stuff to live and can we be consistent? When you are invoking an event or an operation there may be multiple pieces of information that are necessary and you may send all of them in one block or just send references and people can retrieve if needed. What are the implementers saying that they would like to see? If you have an ORU then your focus is the request resource. What part of the resource do I expect to be present in each situation? The question from the group is when and should we be tackling those issues? Brian Pech mentions that others are exploring a limited number of certain V2 messages.  Lloyd suggests they experiment and get reactions and bring back here.
 +
**Custom Resource Policy
 +
***Grahame crafted draft policy. Group reviews. Approved by FGB. Paul brings up the naming issue/prefixes for differentiation. Do we want a process that has some kind of formal or advisory status? Difficulty enabling content packages; in the absence of that, people will want to create resources that jump across other resources but don't do so well. Josh: How do we know any of these are conformant without a specific test? Paul: Do we care if they're FHIR or not FHIR? Grahame: When it comes to reference implementations and test servers, there is no interoperable way to do that, no agreed approach. Problem is that we want a policy to describe clearly to the community where we stand. Don't want people claiming things to be conformant to FHIR that aren't.
 +
***Continue conversation on chat and/or next week - put near top of agenda.
 +
Adjourned at 5:40 pm Eastern
 +
 +
==Minutes==
 
*Roll Call
 
*Roll Call
 
*Agenda Check
 
*Agenda Check
Line 41: Line 92:
 
**Liaisons to reach out to WGs and report back on WG intentions for FMM levels
 
**Liaisons to reach out to WGs and report back on WG intentions for FMM levels
 
**David/Brian to send out reminder regarding Connectathon proposal due date of 6/15
 
**David/Brian to send out reminder regarding Connectathon proposal due date of 6/15
 +
*Approval Items
 
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/10074/14321/HL7%20Project%20Scope%20Statement%20MnM%20FHIR.docx MnM PSS]
 
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/10074/14321/HL7%20Project%20Scope%20Statement%20MnM%20FHIR.docx MnM PSS]
 
**[http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ConsentDirective_FHIR_Resource_Proposal ConsentDirective Resource Proposal]
 
**[http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ConsentDirective_FHIR_Resource_Proposal ConsentDirective Resource Proposal]
Line 62: Line 114:
 
**Ballot content review and QA process [[FHIR QA Guidelines]]
 
**Ballot content review and QA process [[FHIR QA Guidelines]]
 
*AOB (Any Other Business)
 
*AOB (Any Other Business)
−
 
−
==Minutes==
 
  
  
Line 81: Line 131:
 
Back to [[FHIR_Management_Group]]
 
Back to [[FHIR_Management_Group]]
  
−
© 2015 Health Level Seven® International
+
© 2016 Health Level Seven® International

Latest revision as of 19:31, 16 June 2016

HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597
(voice and screen)

Date: 2016-06-15
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs Regrets David Hay Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio Woody Beeler,
Dave Shaver
FGB Co-chairs		 . Wayne Kubick, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
x Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite x Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech
x Grahame Grieve .

Agenda

  • Called to order at 4:05 pm Eastern
  • Agenda Check
    • Add mappings and V2 event mappings question from PA
    • MOTION by Brian Post to approve agenda; second by Brian Pech
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Minutes from 20160608_FMG_concall
    • MOTION by Brian Post to approve; second by Brian Pech
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Action items
    • Lloyd to coordinate with Bryn on DecisionSupport proposal completion (target: mid-June) - update
      • add for next week
    • Lloyd to update explanation on how to read the reports spreadsheet and see if he can get the emails to work properly; then send an email to the co-chairs to review/address the stale column
      • partially complete; add for next week
    • Hans to reach out to CDS for agreement to transfer ownership of DeviceUseRequest to Pharmacy/Patient Care/OO
      • Generally positive but don't have final vote. Should be Pharmacy or OO who takes it on. Hans reports it would be OO. Just waiting for CDS agreement
      • Update next week
    • Liaisons to reach out to WGs and report back on WG intentions for FMM levels
      • PA is making progress
      • add for next week
    • David/Brian to send out reminder regarding Connectathon proposal due date of 6/15
      • Complete. Will take a look at the end of today's call
  • Approval Items
    • Privacy, Access, and Security Services (PASS) Healthcare Audit Services Conceptual Model - TSC commented that this should to go FMG due to response in risks section: "Ensure resources included on this project who are familiar with FHIR/Restful requirements. Maintain an open line of communication with FHIR resource/requirement developers. Ensure deliverables are reviewed by FHIR resource/requirement developers."
      • Discussion over relationship to FHIR and why it is mentioned in the risks. Should be separate PSS when they define a specification for how PASS can or should be implemented in FHIR. Probably don't need to approve as it's not applicable. Lloyd isn't sure there's a process to waive approval when something references FHIR so we should probably just approve it.
        • MOTION by John to approve; second by Brian.
        • VOTE: Josh abstains. Remaining in favor.
    • Updated DAF FHIR IG PSS
      • Lloyd declares a conflict of interest
      • Project doesn't mention where it is to be published. Options are under HL7.org, ONC site, or somewhere else. Would be balloted separately. Publishing location would have to be addressed. Project dependencies should list FHIR core ballot.
      • MOTION by Brian Post to approve; second by Hans
      • VOTE: all in favor
  • Discussion Items:
    • Additional text for FMM Levels page
      • Proposed text: In some cases, a resource may have components or dependencies that are a lower level than the resource overall. For example, a resource may have been well tested, with the exception of one or two data elements which are "new" or that have limited production use due to the distribution of early adopters. In these cases, a "maturity note" will be provided that highlights areas of the resource that are considered "less mature" than the resource as a whole. Allows us to call out specific pieces of the resource that are suspect as to whether they are at the same level as the resource as a whole.
      • Discussion over where to place this text/how to communicate. Paul notes it may be very confusing to people.
      • MOTION by Paul to approve change; second by Brian Post
      • VOTE: all in favor
    • Mappings and V2 event mappings question from PA
      • How do we deal with event level stuff? Lloyd: ties into workflow. When you have value sets you can include mappings and find them fairly easily in the spreadsheet or use concept maps if not using spreadsheet. Question of what you should be mapping to is another thing; where do we want this event stuff to live and can we be consistent? When you are invoking an event or an operation there may be multiple pieces of information that are necessary and you may send all of them in one block or just send references and people can retrieve if needed. What are the implementers saying that they would like to see? If you have an ORU then your focus is the request resource. What part of the resource do I expect to be present in each situation? The question from the group is when and should we be tackling those issues? Brian Pech mentions that others are exploring a limited number of certain V2 messages. Lloyd suggests they experiment and get reactions and bring back here.
    • Custom Resource Policy
      • Grahame crafted draft policy. Group reviews. Approved by FGB. Paul brings up the naming issue/prefixes for differentiation. Do we want a process that has some kind of formal or advisory status? Difficulty enabling content packages; in the absence of that, people will want to create resources that jump across other resources but don't do so well. Josh: How do we know any of these are conformant without a specific test? Paul: Do we care if they're FHIR or not FHIR? Grahame: When it comes to reference implementations and test servers, there is no interoperable way to do that, no agreed approach. Problem is that we want a policy to describe clearly to the community where we stand. Don't want people claiming things to be conformant to FHIR that aren't.
      • Continue conversation on chat and/or next week - put near top of agenda.

Adjourned at 5:40 pm Eastern

Minutes

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 20160608_FMG_concall
  • Administrative
  • Action items
    • Lloyd to coordinate with Bryn on DecisionSupport proposal completion (target: mid-June) - update
    • Lloyd to update explanation on how to read the reports spreadsheet and see if he can get the emails to work properly; then send an email to the co-chairs to review/address the stale column
    • Hans to reach out to CDS for agreement to transfer ownership of DeviceUseRequest to Pharmacy/Patient Care/OO
    • Liaisons to reach out to WGs and report back on WG intentions for FMM levels
    • David/Brian to send out reminder regarding Connectathon proposal due date of 6/15
  • Approval Items
  • Discussion Items:
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)


Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

20160622 FMG concall


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2016 Health Level Seven® International

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=20160615_FMG_concall&oldid=121682"