This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "CMHAFF call, Monday, May 22"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "Agenda: * Debrief from Madrid WGM about priorities and direction for cMHAFF, scope ** STU vs Informative ** Guidance vs "certification" target ** Timeline ** International vs...") |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | Attendees: David Tao, Nathan Botts, Matthew Graham, Vanessa Batoon | ||
| + | |||
Agenda: | Agenda: | ||
* Debrief from Madrid WGM about priorities and direction for cMHAFF, scope | * Debrief from Madrid WGM about priorities and direction for cMHAFF, scope | ||
| − | ** STU vs Informative | + | ** STU vs Informative -- stay with Informative |
| − | ** Guidance vs "certification" target | + | ** Guidance vs "certification" target --- stay with "guidance" approach. |
| − | ** Timeline | + | ** Timeline -- Still aim for September ballot |
| − | ** International vs US-realm | + | ** International vs US-realm -- International still, but OK to have US examples |
| − | |||
* Review highlighted changes in cMHAFF draft | * Review highlighted changes in cMHAFF draft | ||
| − | * Other resources to incorporate or reference | + | **2.2.1 scope |
| − | * HITRUST review/limited license, final decision | + | **2.3 Lifecycle -- suggested addition: publishing on app store, meeting the app store requirements; app enhancements and maintenance after initial release; frequency of updates; keeping current with OS, etc. |
| + | **2.3.2 Use Case B -- say "regulated" vs "unregulated" and the criteria for what's regulated varies by realm (e.g.,FDA.) European example is in materials Matt sent me. Clarify if examples are realm-specific. | ||
| + | **We ran out of time before covering these: | ||
| + | ***2.3.4 Risk Factors | ||
| + | ***2.4 Environmental Scan | ||
| + | ***3.2, (1.2) Product Risk Assessment and Mitigation | ||
| + | * Other resources to incorporate or reference -- European materials. French guidance received; Matt to send info from Netherlands; Finnish PHR presentation at Madrid will also be reviewed (posted on HL7 webpage). | ||
| + | * HITRUST review/limited license, final decision -- defer until future. | ||
Latest revision as of 15:02, 2 June 2017
Attendees: David Tao, Nathan Botts, Matthew Graham, Vanessa Batoon
Agenda:
- Debrief from Madrid WGM about priorities and direction for cMHAFF, scope
- STU vs Informative -- stay with Informative
- Guidance vs "certification" target --- stay with "guidance" approach.
- Timeline -- Still aim for September ballot
- International vs US-realm -- International still, but OK to have US examples
- Review highlighted changes in cMHAFF draft
- 2.2.1 scope
- 2.3 Lifecycle -- suggested addition: publishing on app store, meeting the app store requirements; app enhancements and maintenance after initial release; frequency of updates; keeping current with OS, etc.
- 2.3.2 Use Case B -- say "regulated" vs "unregulated" and the criteria for what's regulated varies by realm (e.g.,FDA.) European example is in materials Matt sent me. Clarify if examples are realm-specific.
- We ran out of time before covering these:
- 2.3.4 Risk Factors
- 2.4 Environmental Scan
- 3.2, (1.2) Product Risk Assessment and Mitigation
- Other resources to incorporate or reference -- European materials. French guidance received; Matt to send info from Netherlands; Finnish PHR presentation at Madrid will also be reviewed (posted on HL7 webpage).
- HITRUST review/limited license, final decision -- defer until future.
