20170214 US Realm SC Call

back to US_Realm_Steering_Committee
back to US_Realm_Steering_Committee_Conference_Calls

US Realm Steering Committee Call Agenda/Minutes Location: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/929752237]		Date: 2017-02-14 Time: 1 PM Eastern
Co-Chairs	Ed/Brett	Note taker(s)	Anne

Attendee / Name
	Calvin Beebe		Keith Boone	x	Hans Buitendijk
x	Lorraine Constable		Johnathan Coleman	x	Ed Hammond
x	Tony Julian	x	Paul Knapp	x	Austin Kreisler
x	Brett Marquard		Ken McCaslin		Nancy Orvis
	Brian Pech		Wayne Kubick		Christol Green
	Sandra Stuart	.	Pat Van Dyke	x	Anne Wizauer
x	Danielle Friend	x	Eric Haas	x	Jenni Syed
	Steve Posnak	x	David Susanto	x	Craig Parker
		.		.
Visitor/ Name
x	Floyd Eisenberg
no quorum definition

Agenda

Administrivia

• Agenda review
• Review notes from 20170207_US_Realm_SC_Call
• Action Items

Discussion:

• US Core - continued
  • Floyd Eisenberg notes that Quality and CDS WG have looked at data models for managing quality. One

Minutes

• Discussion:
  • US Core - continued
    • Floyd Eisenberg notes that Quality and CDS WG have looked at data models for managing quality. Findings: Measures should be designed for what is present in the first place, and what's present in standards isn't really sufficient. Measure and CDS shouldn't be looking for things that are unreasonable and obtrusive to workflow. In US core, it's helpful but not sufficient to improve care locally. There are common needs for evaluating measurement that should be part of US Core. The use case is similar to research; more effective to expand US Core as needed and appropriate to cover all use cases. QI Core was intended for Universal, but to use in US we have to bind to vocabularies. The resolution of September ballot is aligning with US core, adopting the bindings that are there. To use it universally people would remove the binding.
    • Discussion over how this goes forward. Would data elements be submitted to this group for inclusion in US core?
    • Floyd: We have QI Core which is going to be FHIR 3.0; we're also working with the CIMI group. Do we submit to US Realm? Or another group? Would you manage it at the content level?
    • Ed: US Realm would take on responsibility for the product of US core; might assign it to appropriate WG for feedback. ***Brett: The current plan is this group would review new additions to US core; the formal process is not developed yet. Today US Core is intended to be a set of data elements that any US server conforms to.
    • How rigorous is the process to add new elements? That's a question we'll be looking at.
    • What types of checks should we have in place before adding things? Floyd: Having some kind of maturity model would be important.
    • Ed: If there is a defined need and set of characteristics, I'd be open for that element being added to US core. Another question is how we work with CIMI - is CIMI the vehicle by which all of these submit?
    • Craig: Would need to talk to Stan and others, but we probably wouldn't want to go through CIMI first.
    • Hans: I think it's appropriate to open the door to recognize whether it's for direct care, research, unique constructs to the US. Brett: CIMI is a big stakeholder in the process, but I wouldn't lean through everything coming through CIMI.
      • Next time: Eric has been cleaning up gforge tickets and US Realm has some items to resolve. Will post them for comment and approve on the 28th.
• Cancel next week due to HIMSS
• Adjourned at 1:36 pm Eastern

Meeting Outcomes

Actions

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 20170228 US Realm SC Call Tuesday at 1 PM ET

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved