20161012 FMG concall

HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597 (voice and screen)		Date: 2016-10-12 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		Woody Beeler, Dave Shaver FGB Co-chairs	.	wayne Kubick, CTO

Members		Members		Members		Observers/Guests
x	Hans Buitendijk	x	Brian Postlethwaite		Paul Knapp	x	Anne W., scribe
	Josh Mandel	x	John Moehrke		Brian Pech
	Grahame Grieve					x	Melva Peters, Brett Marquard, Richard Ettema

Agenda

• Roll Call
• Agenda Check
• Minutes from 20161005_FMG_concall
• Action items
  • Brian Pech to forward FMG comments regarding proposed extension review process to US Realm
  • Hans will draft a formal policy for endorsement and distribution regarding extensions and profiles to a resource being accepted by the WG that owns the resource before it can go to ballot
    • Draft Policy:
    • When HL7 workgroups or other organizations wish to put forth core extensions or profiles through the HL7 FHIR review and ballot process and have them ultimately registered under HL7 FHIR Core, then the owning workgroup of the resource to which the core extension or profile applies MUST be involved in the review process before the core extension or profile goes to ballot and the workgroup MUST have approved the update and reflect that in their minutes by motion and affirmative vote.
  • Lloyd to begin draft of PSS regarding the proposed new balloting process
  • Grahame to email volunteers for Patient track with decisions on volunteer placement
  • Richard Ettema to report statistics on conformance statements
• Approval items
  • Updated Pharmacy FHIR Maturity Project PSS
  • InfoButton on FHIR
• Discussion Topics
  • Additional expectations regarding criteria for normative
  • How to measure balloter review of ballot material
• Reports
  • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
  • FGB –
  • MnM –
  • FMG Liaisons –
• Process management
  • Ballot Planning
  • Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
• AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

• Roll Call
  • Melva and Brett here to discuss Pharmacy PSS
• Agenda Check
  • MOTION to approve: Hans/Brian

• Approval items
  • Updated Pharmacy FHIR Maturity Project PSS
    • Brett describes changes. Will not create new profiles that conflict with existing US profiles.
    • Hans: Scope is focusing on both enhancing existing core profiles and creating new US realm profiles to complement what's in US core? Will any overlap be resolved? Melva: We will work to enhance the core existing profiles and create new ones where they don't exist.
    • Lloyd: Didn't understand there was a plan to create a new IG for December tha twill be separate and distinct from US core IG. If we're going to have a new IG, then we need to have a clearly defined scope boundary between content that lives in US core and what content lives in this new guide that justifies necessity for two IGs. Brett asks if you can create profiles without IGs. Lloyd: There can be international scope profiles that are part of the core spec; no national-specific IGs in core. Melva: Other standards have US realm content published within. Is this just a new rule for FHIR? Lloyd: V2 couldn't publish outside the spec. We don't publish within the spec for national-specific material. what is the scope difference between this pharmacy guide and the US-core guide that makes it necessary to have 2 guides? David: Why is this not just simply additions to the US-core profile? Brett: What belongs in US-core? It's very nicely scoped to US regulation today. Before we add stuff to it we need to address it in US Realm. US -core doesn't provide much around how to use the profiles. This project may eventually fold into US-core but is presumptuous to presume it belongs there.
    • Grahame: This sounds like US Lab. There's a labeling problem here. Intersection between things that happen in the US that are US-specific that have international ramifications, like Argonaut.
    • Lloyd: We have three separate scopes in terms of US stuff that is happening. We've got US-core, which is defining general purpose guidance, then we've got IGs that sit on top of that describing US practice. Need to figure out hierarchy of IGs should be and what the specific scopes are for them so someone who comes with a new requirement knows where it will go.
    • Grahame: I think this project makes sense and we need to figure out how to elevate non-us-specific stuff out of the us-specific context. May have things that come out of the project that aren't core, but not specific for a particular jurisdiction.
      • MOTION to approve the project: Brian Post/Grahame
      • VOTE: All in favor
• Minutes from 20161005_FMG_concall
  • MOTION to approve: Brian Post/Lloyd
  • VOTE: all in favor
• Action items
  • Brian Pech to forward FMG comments regarding proposed extension review process to US Realm
    • Add for next week
  • Hans will draft a formal policy for endorsement and distribution regarding extensions and profiles to a resource being accepted by the WG that owns the resource before it can go to ballot
    • Draft Policy:
    • When HL7 workgroups or other organizations wish to put forth core extensions or profiles through the HL7 FHIR review and ballot process and have them ultimately registered under HL7 FHIR Core, then the owning workgroup of the resource to which the core extension or profile applies MUST be involved in the review process before the core extension or profile goes to ballot and the workgroup MUST have approved the update and reflect that in their minutes by motion and affirmative vote.
    • Simplified statement:
    • FHIR core extensions and profiles can only be developed by the workgroup that owns the resource that the core extension or profile applies to.
    • Grahame is fine with this being the policy for core. Should ask international community for consideration around an affiliate publishing a profile that represents misunderstanding of the underlying international artifacts and what kind of policies we should consider in order to try to avoid quality problems without creating process problems.
      • MOTION to accept simplified statement: John/Hans
      • VOTE: Brian Post abstains. Remaining in favor.
      • ACTION: Grahame to follow up with international community for consideration around an affiliate publishing a profile that represents misunderstanding of the underlying international artifacts and what kind of policies we should consider in order to try to avoid quality problems without creating process problems.

• • Lloyd to begin draft of PSS regarding the proposed new balloting process
    • Add for next week
  • Grahame to email volunteers for Patient track with decisions on volunteer placement
    • Corey was not necessarily on board. Russ is interested in clinical role. Need to figure out how that will look.
      • ACTION: Anne to add to Connectathon section for next week - look at roles for Ron and Russ
  • Richard Ettema to report statistics on conformance statements
    • 32 test systems publically testable. Of those, 16 do not make a conformance statement available; 8 of the other systems have conformance statements but their statement doesn't support what they test against. The other quarter provide a statement and test against what they support.
      • ACTION: David/Richard to draft reminder to implementers to provide a conformance statement/promote at the next Connectathon for review next week
  • Brian/Paul to put together a dummy HTML page as templates for table styles
    • Add for next week
  • InfoButton on FHIR
    • Group reviews
    • Discussion over difference between URL-based and Restful
    • Haven't seen resource/profile proposals yet; deadline is coming up soon
    • Discussion over why it's not US realm (is marked as Universal) since bindings should be to US bindings - needs clarification.
      • MOTION to approve: Grahame/Brian Post
      • VOTE: all in favor
      • ACTION: David to contact WG to clarify realm
• Discussion topics
  • Ballot reconciliation
    • 8822 and 8823 will be reassigned to QI core IG project with the explanation that we will now have a policy that requires review and acceptance of extensions as sound and safe by the responsible WG for both core and US realm IG extensions.
      • ACTION: Lloyd to get M&M to add that into quality criteria for IGs
  • Additional expectations regarding criteria for normative
    • We could require more than FMM level 5. Explicit approval is required by 1 and 4. Add that it has to have passed ballot; WG approves; can't make breaking changes. Are we comfortable with something going normative if it's been implemented in US and Canada only? Does that count as more than one country? Could say that we have to cover a certain number of regions. Could change country to continent, and bump from 2 to 3? Perhaps add something like "FMG is comfortable that implementation diversity covers expected worldwide scope?" David: Perhaps we add the FMG recommends it goes Normative" instead of just WG?
      • ACTION: Add topic to next week
• Adjourned at 5:33 pm Eastern

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 20161019 FMG concall

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2015 Health Level Seven® International