This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "2018-06-13 FMG concall"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| x||Josh Mandel ||x ||John Moehrke|| ||Brian Pech || || | | x||Josh Mandel ||x ||John Moehrke|| ||Brian Pech || || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | |x ||Grahame Grieve || || || || ||.||Rik Smithies, Bo Borgnakke | + | |x ||Grahame Grieve || || || || ||.||Rik Smithies, Bo Borgnakke, Austin Kreisler |
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 20:58, 26 June 2018
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2018-mm-dd Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| Chair: | Note taker(s): Anne W. | |
| Quorum = chair + 4 | yes/no | |||||
| Co chairs | x | David Hay | x | Lloyd McKenzie | ||
| ex-officio | . | Wayne Kubick, CTO | ||||
| Members | Members | Members | Observers/Guests | ||||
| Hans Buitendijk | Brian Postlethwaite | x | Paul Knapp | x | Anne W., scribe | ||
| x | Josh Mandel | x | John Moehrke | Brian Pech | |||
| x | Grahame Grieve | . | Rik Smithies, Bo Borgnakke, Austin Kreisler | ||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 2018-06-06_FMG_concall
- Action items
- Grahame to reach out to international council re: effectiveness of international IGs
- David to create tracker items for the QA that wasn't applied
- Grahame to put together something to describe a desired level of BR&R community engagement in order to own Substance
- Grahame to draft a process for approving technically breaking changes that are believed not to impact any implementations and submit for review by FMG, MnM and SGB
- Anne to send out email to determine if there would be quorum on 6/27 and 7/4
- Brian to create wiki page for tracks
- Lloyd to send email reflecting new track proposal deadline of 6/27
- Complete NIBs by 7/11 for the Sept ballot
- Review Items
- Exploration of FHIR resources to support of IDMP 11238/19844 Substances Standard and Technical Specification PSS
- Updated HL7 CDA R2 Implementation Guide: Gaps in Care Reporting PSS
- Discussion Topics
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- SGB–
- MnM –
- FMG Liaisons –
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
- AOB (Any Other Business)
Minutes
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Austin here to discuss redirecting ballot comments
- Minutes from 2018-06-06_FMG_concall
- MOTION to approve: Paul/Lloyd
- Action items
- Grahame to reach out to international council re: effectiveness of international IGs
- Reached out again. Got some mixed feedback. There was a belief that people can more easily ignore content in IGs as opposed to putting the same information in the spec. Discussion over providing additional education and expectation. Anything that’s jurisdictionally bound isn’t part of the spec. Things that we expect everybody to follow but have a limited scope of interest (domain specific) – where do those belong? Lloyd: The core spec should call attention to the expectation of adherence to IGs. Discussion over where we refer to the genomics guide, for example. Grahame: Would like to get to the point where we could point to the registry, but the registry isn’t quite there yet.
- David to create tracker items for the QA that wasn't applied
- Carry forward
- Grahame to put together something to describe a desired level of BR&R community engagement in order to own Substance
- Carry forward
- Grahame to draft a process for approving technically breaking changes that are believed not to impact any implementations and submit for review by FMG, MnM and SGB
- Carry forward
- Anne to send out email to determine if there would be quorum on 6/27 and 7/4
- David can chair on the 27th. Anne will send out Doodle
- Brian to create wiki page for tracks
- Complete
- Lloyd to send email reflecting new track proposal deadline of 6/27
- Complete
- Complete NIBs by 7/11 for the Sept ballot
- Need to figure out what is going back to ballot and at what level. Carry forward.
- Grahame to reach out to international council re: effectiveness of international IGs
- Review Items
- Exploration of FHIR resources to support of IDMP 11238/19844 Substances Standard and Technical Specification PSS
- Rik here to describe project. Discussion over Pharmacy WG involvement and appropriate resource boundaries in this space. Lloyd: When you have stuff that’s from the regulatory perspective in the medication model, does it also apply to substances/devices? The PSS scope is that they want to create a resource or two. Can create them and see what they look like and do further analysis then. Lloyd would like to see Medication, Substance, and Device all be considered together in terms of harmonization.
- MOTION to approve contingent upon cosponsor approvals: Lloyd/Paul
- VOTE: All in favor
- Rik here to describe project. Discussion over Pharmacy WG involvement and appropriate resource boundaries in this space. Lloyd: When you have stuff that’s from the regulatory perspective in the medication model, does it also apply to substances/devices? The PSS scope is that they want to create a resource or two. Can create them and see what they look like and do further analysis then. Lloyd would like to see Medication, Substance, and Device all be considered together in terms of harmonization.
- Updated HL7 CDA R2 Implementation Guide: Gaps in Care Reporting PSS
- Bo Borgnakke here to present updated project. David: How is it different than a measure report? Bo: This just states if a patient is in or out of compliance with a measure. Lloyd: Will this also capture measurements or assertion of compliance with orders? Bo states that’s not part of the current scope but it is an interesting idea. Could make it a reference to patient, location, or practitioner too. Grahame: How are you going to build community engagement? Bo states that in Michigan, there is a group called the physician/payer quality collaborative, as well as provider organizations that came up with this spec and are actively exchanging this information. The entire group has said they would adopt any national/HL7 standard as soon as it is released. There is powerful leverage for adopting this very quickly. There is some interest outside Michigan as well. Grahame wonders about testing? David suggests it could be a Connectathon track. Grahame: Need to focus more on how to bring non-Michigan candidates with you on the project. Bo states that Diameter Health, D’Amore’s organization, is nationwide and they’ve expressed the desire to get on board as well. We’ve also looped in BC/BS at a national level. This would scale beyond Michigan’s borders right away. Grahame: Before we publish, we want to see that there is requisite input and engagement. Bo states they will seek more and more stakeholder engagement through the process. Lloyd: IN terms of normative ballot, you’ll be tied to the ballot status of the artifacts that you’re dependent on – if you rely on Measure, your IG will go normative before those resources go normative.
- MOTION to accept: Lloyd/Paul
- VOTE: All in favor
- Bo Borgnakke here to present updated project. David: How is it different than a measure report? Bo: This just states if a patient is in or out of compliance with a measure. Lloyd: Will this also capture measurements or assertion of compliance with orders? Bo states that’s not part of the current scope but it is an interesting idea. Could make it a reference to patient, location, or practitioner too. Grahame: How are you going to build community engagement? Bo states that in Michigan, there is a group called the physician/payer quality collaborative, as well as provider organizations that came up with this spec and are actively exchanging this information. The entire group has said they would adopt any national/HL7 standard as soon as it is released. There is powerful leverage for adopting this very quickly. There is some interest outside Michigan as well. Grahame wonders about testing? David suggests it could be a Connectathon track. Grahame: Need to focus more on how to bring non-Michigan candidates with you on the project. Bo states that Diameter Health, D’Amore’s organization, is nationwide and they’ve expressed the desire to get on board as well. We’ve also looped in BC/BS at a national level. This would scale beyond Michigan’s borders right away. Grahame: Before we publish, we want to see that there is requisite input and engagement. Bo states they will seek more and more stakeholder engagement through the process. Lloyd: IN terms of normative ballot, you’ll be tied to the ballot status of the artifacts that you’re dependent on – if you rely on Measure, your IG will go normative before those resources go normative.
- Exploration of FHIR resources to support of IDMP 11238/19844 Substances Standard and Technical Specification PSS
- Discussion Topics
- Austin here to discuss redirecting ballot comments, which was forwarded to TSC from FMG. The question was how to handle these in tracker, and what if any GOM changes do we need to handle. The current issue is there are some number of comments that have been found not related because they were entered against the wrong ballot. There was a notion that WGs could redirect the comments to the right WG who could decide to accept and fix them against the appropriate content. That’s fine, but we need to preserve the correct ballot item/tracker. The proposed solution is to recommend to WGs that they don’t touch the disposition of the initial tracker item which has been appropriately labeled not related, and open a second tracker item linked back to the original tracker item where they copy the problem they’re going to fix and resolve it using that second tracker item as a comment. Should cross reference the new tracker item in the old tracker as well. Grahame: That is different than what we’ve already been practicing. We’ve said it’s at the WG’s discretion rather than they’re obliged. Austin clarifies that it is still at their discretion. Lloyd states that for non-normative, we’ve just had the appropriate WG resolve the issue whether it’s in scope or not. For normative content, we do find the item not related, and if we feel that there’s merit, we pass the item on to the appropriate WG. Austin states that’s exactly the recommendation. Grahame: Most of the cases is transiting between ballots rather than WGs – the language should reflect that instance as well. If an issue needs to be solved, a second tracker is appropriate. Lloyd notes that it gets more complicated when multiple people ballot against the same tracker item, some of which are in scope and some of which are out of scope because they used the wrong ballot. When we move to JIRA, it will be different in that most of the resolutions of items are resolution of comments, but the notion of not related is a resolution of the ballot vote itself. There is a separation of the resolution of the vote and the resolution of the tracker item. Suggests holding off on making GOM changes because there will be another shift. Discussion over instances where this has occurred. Austin will look at previous guidance and send out guidance to WGs on how to proceed.
- Criteria for inclusion of profiles and valuesets in FHIR Core
- Carrry forward
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- Track deadline has been bumped out. Room only has space for 230 and are expecting more; HQ is working on getting the rest of the space.
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- Adjourned at 5:29 pm Eastern
Next Steps
| Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) | |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2018 Health Level Seven® International
