This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "2016-07-27 SGB Conference Call"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
===============================================================================---> | ===============================================================================---> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || Calvin Beebe | + | |x || Calvin Beebe |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||Lorraine Constable | + | | x||Lorraine Constable |
|- | |- | ||
| − | ||| Russ Hamm | + | |x|| Russ Hamm |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || Tony Julian | + | |x|| Tony Julian |
|- | |- | ||
| − | ||| Paul Knapp | + | |x|| Paul Knapp |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || Austin Kreisler | + | | x|| Austin Kreisler |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || Wayne Kubick | + | |Regrets || Wayne Kubick |
|- | |- | ||
| || Mary Kay McDaniel | | || Mary Kay McDaniel | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| || Rik Smithies | | || Rik Smithies | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |x || Brian Pech | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 73: | Line 75: | ||
========================================================---> | ========================================================---> | ||
===Agenda=== | ===Agenda=== | ||
| + | *Minutes review of [[2016-07-20_SGB_Conference_Call]] | ||
| + | *Discussion Topics | ||
| + | **Review materials from 2016-07-13 in advance of meeting with HTA | ||
| + | **Review work done by Structured Documents from Calvin/Lorraine | ||
| + | **Look at requirements for each of our standards products in terms of logging issues and comments in a standardized way | ||
| + | *Parking lot | ||
| + | **Coordinate time with HTA to review risks and their likelihood and impact | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Minutes=== | ||
*Agenda review | *Agenda review | ||
*Minutes review of [[2016-07-20_SGB_Conference_Call]] | *Minutes review of [[2016-07-20_SGB_Conference_Call]] | ||
*Discussion Topics | *Discussion Topics | ||
**Review materials from 2016-07-13 in advance of meeting with HTA | **Review materials from 2016-07-13 in advance of meeting with HTA | ||
| + | ***Reviewed most recent document (changes and additions) for those who were absent from that call. | ||
| + | ****ACTION: Anne to forward HTA the document and the link to scoring (RiskManagement20121024.doc) | ||
| + | ****ACTION: Anne to ask for SGB to appear on next call agenda. | ||
| + | ****ACTION: Add to upcoming August call: Formalize a recording, scoring, and prioritization strategy for risks | ||
**Review work done by Structured Documents from Calvin/Lorraine | **Review work done by Structured Documents from Calvin/Lorraine | ||
| + | ***Calvin displays presentation: An Architecture for CDS and Quality Measurement. Describes how SAIF can be used to segment and partition and describes SAIF architectural components. Mapping standards and then identifying gaps and overlaps brought focus on next steps. Value in SAIF is at the level of assessing the challenges we have as an organization. | ||
**Look at requirements for each of our standards products in terms of logging issues and comments in a standardized way | **Look at requirements for each of our standards products in terms of logging issues and comments in a standardized way | ||
| + | ***Discussion over the disparate ways different groups are logging issues/comments. FHIR uses tracker, others use spreadsheets, etc. 2.x has a proposal database and V3 has something similar; others use wiki-based solutions. Jira is being looked at as a replacement for tracker. Structured Documents has been successful using the DSTU comment pages; much better than a spreadsheet or wiki. OO has used it successfully has well. It is custom code, however. | ||
| + | ***What part of this is governance vs. management? Governance: an assertion that we need to have uniform functionality across organization. | ||
| + | ***Statement: To ensure high-quality standards, SGB recognizes the need for the ability to collect comments on in-process and live standards across all families and that this is something which the organization should work to meet in a consistent manner. Then pass to TSC? | ||
| + | ****MOTION to ask TSC to work with EST to look at this issue and follow up on project 1032: Lorraine/Calvin | ||
| + | ****DISCUSSION: We have a requirements-gathering exercise regarding tracker. Perceived advantage to have a single repository rather than creating two. Is that something we should mention in going forward to TSC? Lorraine: that becomes part of the requirements exercise. | ||
| + | ****VOTE: All in favor | ||
| + | ***Will start to discuss now and further in Baltimore. | ||
| + | ***ACTION: Anne to add topic introduction to 2016-08-08 TSC call | ||
| + | **ARB Discussion on application of SAIF: | ||
| + | ***People need to learn to do the conceptual before they do the bits and bytes. Seeing a lot of blending and people not understanding what layer they're working on. Need to differentiate between the way groups like ARB and SGB use the SAIF framework and what the rest of the organization needs. Will need to go back and forth between the ARB and SGB; SGB will have to adopt a method to help WGs understand where their stuff belongs. Presenting at the co-chair dinner may not have a favorable outcome. Need to make the information consumable for a broad audience. Need to understand risks and concerns the technology speaks to. | ||
| + | *Next week: Review and adopt the risk prioritization methodology and begin to apply to HTA materials | ||
*Parking lot | *Parking lot | ||
**Coordinate time with HTA to review risks and their likelihood and impact | **Coordinate time with HTA to review risks and their likelihood and impact | ||
| − | |||
Revision as of 21:47, 29 July 2016
back to Standards Governance Board main page
| HL7 SGB Minutes |
Date: 2016-07-27 Time: 10:00 AM Eastern | ||
| Facilitator | Paul/Calvin | Note taker(s) | Anne |
| Attendee | Name
| ||
| x | Calvin Beebe | ||
| x | Lorraine Constable | ||
| x | Russ Hamm | ||
| x | Tony Julian | ||
| x | Paul Knapp | ||
| x | Austin Kreisler | ||
| Regrets | Wayne Kubick | ||
| Mary Kay McDaniel | |||
| Ken McCaslin | |||
| Rik Smithies | |||
| x | Brian Pech | ||
| no quorum definition | |||
Agenda
- Minutes review of 2016-07-20_SGB_Conference_Call
- Discussion Topics
- Review materials from 2016-07-13 in advance of meeting with HTA
- Review work done by Structured Documents from Calvin/Lorraine
- Look at requirements for each of our standards products in terms of logging issues and comments in a standardized way
- Parking lot
- Coordinate time with HTA to review risks and their likelihood and impact
Minutes
- Agenda review
- Minutes review of 2016-07-20_SGB_Conference_Call
- Discussion Topics
- Review materials from 2016-07-13 in advance of meeting with HTA
- Reviewed most recent document (changes and additions) for those who were absent from that call.
- ACTION: Anne to forward HTA the document and the link to scoring (RiskManagement20121024.doc)
- ACTION: Anne to ask for SGB to appear on next call agenda.
- ACTION: Add to upcoming August call: Formalize a recording, scoring, and prioritization strategy for risks
- Reviewed most recent document (changes and additions) for those who were absent from that call.
- Review work done by Structured Documents from Calvin/Lorraine
- Calvin displays presentation: An Architecture for CDS and Quality Measurement. Describes how SAIF can be used to segment and partition and describes SAIF architectural components. Mapping standards and then identifying gaps and overlaps brought focus on next steps. Value in SAIF is at the level of assessing the challenges we have as an organization.
- Look at requirements for each of our standards products in terms of logging issues and comments in a standardized way
- Discussion over the disparate ways different groups are logging issues/comments. FHIR uses tracker, others use spreadsheets, etc. 2.x has a proposal database and V3 has something similar; others use wiki-based solutions. Jira is being looked at as a replacement for tracker. Structured Documents has been successful using the DSTU comment pages; much better than a spreadsheet or wiki. OO has used it successfully has well. It is custom code, however.
- What part of this is governance vs. management? Governance: an assertion that we need to have uniform functionality across organization.
- Statement: To ensure high-quality standards, SGB recognizes the need for the ability to collect comments on in-process and live standards across all families and that this is something which the organization should work to meet in a consistent manner. Then pass to TSC?
- MOTION to ask TSC to work with EST to look at this issue and follow up on project 1032: Lorraine/Calvin
- DISCUSSION: We have a requirements-gathering exercise regarding tracker. Perceived advantage to have a single repository rather than creating two. Is that something we should mention in going forward to TSC? Lorraine: that becomes part of the requirements exercise.
- VOTE: All in favor
- Will start to discuss now and further in Baltimore.
- ACTION: Anne to add topic introduction to 2016-08-08 TSC call
- ARB Discussion on application of SAIF:
- People need to learn to do the conceptual before they do the bits and bytes. Seeing a lot of blending and people not understanding what layer they're working on. Need to differentiate between the way groups like ARB and SGB use the SAIF framework and what the rest of the organization needs. Will need to go back and forth between the ARB and SGB; SGB will have to adopt a method to help WGs understand where their stuff belongs. Presenting at the co-chair dinner may not have a favorable outcome. Need to make the information consumable for a broad audience. Need to understand risks and concerns the technology speaks to.
- Review materials from 2016-07-13 in advance of meeting with HTA
- Next week: Review and adopt the risk prioritization methodology and begin to apply to HTA materials
- Parking lot
- Coordinate time with HTA to review risks and their likelihood and impact
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
