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

Difference between revisions of "June 6 - Clinical Mautirty Discussions"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 20: Line 20:
 
* Question raised on having one maturity model instead of two
 
* Question raised on having one maturity model instead of two
 
: - Current FHIR FMG has published a FHIR maturity level
 
: - 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


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
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