This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "20141111 US Realm TF Call"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Agenda) |
|||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
===Minutes=== | ===Minutes=== | ||
| − | |||
| + | *Item from TSC regarding FHIR DSTU timeline - does ONC have any material requirements for ballot timing for FHIR? Feikema states that ONC is aware of and interested in to the current schedules and issues with FHIR. FMG and others are involved in several projects, but there are no unknown or unpublished requests lurking in the background. Plugging into existing FHIR timeline as opposed to needing something above and beyond. Paul wonders about timeline; could we due the draft for comment in December, or we could do it in May – more likely to have actual content rather than placeholders. Would that be preferable to ONC? When do we need to know? Jonathan wonders what the long term implications are of delay? Two pronged question: When will the proposed ballot decisions be made, and when would response be needed? Group agrees that the sooner the better – next week would be idea. Paul: If we’re going to end up with placeholders, why do a December ballot? Do a May ballot on content instead. Feikema wonders what a December ballot would help inform. Does it advance the cause and increase productivity? Ed: many want FHIR to be accelerated in terms of MU stage 2, and it would be best to have it be content-driven. John Q. states that they want high-level profiles that work consistently. Lorraine states that a challenge of acceleration is that the workgroups are included. Ed states that we need more people involved to help us make this more global in nature. This is an opportunity to bridge a lot of gaps. Discussion over the ballot slowing down the work; a draft for comment could be distracting and counterproductive to acceleration. Paul would rather see full value review steps rather than on placeholders. Lack of a formal ballot does not preclude review. The rule at the moment is that if something is to be considered in DSTU 2, it must come up at least as a placeholder in the for-comment ballot, so we would need it in the next 3 weeks. If we move the goalpost to May, we still have the opportunity to more thoroughly explore the items. This will be discussed on FMG tomorrow via Paul. Anne to get minutes from Karen for the advisory council and distribute them to attendees of USRTF. | ||
| + | Adjourned at 1:24. | ||
===Meeting Outcomes=== | ===Meeting Outcomes=== | ||
Revision as of 20:05, 11 November 2014
back to US Realm Task Force
back to US Realm Task Force Conference Calls
| US Realm Task Force Call Agenda/Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# |
Date: 2014-11-11 Time: 1 PM Eastern | ||
| Facilitator | Ed/Ken | Note taker(s) | Anne W. |
| Attendee / Name | |||||
| Calvin Beebe | Regrets | Woody Beeler | Keith Boone | ||
| Joe Bormel | Lorraine Constable | Johnathan Coleman | |||
| Julie Crouse | John Feikema | Freida Hall | |||
| Ed Hammond | Tony Julian | Paul Knapp | |||
| Austin Kreisler | Lynn Laakso | Ken McCaslin | |||
| John Quinn | David Susanto | Pat VanDyke | |||
| Visitor / Name | |||||
| no quorum definition | |||||
Agenda
Administrivia
- Agenda review
- Review notes from 20141104_US_Realm_TF_Call
- Action Items
Discussion:
- Review of any outstanding issues
- Item from yesterday's TSC Call. Review of FHIR DSTU timeline: Does ONC have any material requirements for ballot timing for FHIR? Is ONC doing anything that is dependent on the next version of FHIR?
Minutes
- Item from TSC regarding FHIR DSTU timeline - does ONC have any material requirements for ballot timing for FHIR? Feikema states that ONC is aware of and interested in to the current schedules and issues with FHIR. FMG and others are involved in several projects, but there are no unknown or unpublished requests lurking in the background. Plugging into existing FHIR timeline as opposed to needing something above and beyond. Paul wonders about timeline; could we due the draft for comment in December, or we could do it in May – more likely to have actual content rather than placeholders. Would that be preferable to ONC? When do we need to know? Jonathan wonders what the long term implications are of delay? Two pronged question: When will the proposed ballot decisions be made, and when would response be needed? Group agrees that the sooner the better – next week would be idea. Paul: If we’re going to end up with placeholders, why do a December ballot? Do a May ballot on content instead. Feikema wonders what a December ballot would help inform. Does it advance the cause and increase productivity? Ed: many want FHIR to be accelerated in terms of MU stage 2, and it would be best to have it be content-driven. John Q. states that they want high-level profiles that work consistently. Lorraine states that a challenge of acceleration is that the workgroups are included. Ed states that we need more people involved to help us make this more global in nature. This is an opportunity to bridge a lot of gaps. Discussion over the ballot slowing down the work; a draft for comment could be distracting and counterproductive to acceleration. Paul would rather see full value review steps rather than on placeholders. Lack of a formal ballot does not preclude review. The rule at the moment is that if something is to be considered in DSTU 2, it must come up at least as a placeholder in the for-comment ballot, so we would need it in the next 3 weeks. If we move the goalpost to May, we still have the opportunity to more thoroughly explore the items. This will be discussed on FMG tomorrow via Paul. Anne to get minutes from Karen for the advisory council and distribute them to attendees of USRTF.
Adjourned at 1:24.
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
