This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2018-11-07 FMG concall
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2018-11-07 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 | ||||
| x | Hans Buitendijk | x | Brian Postlethwaite | Paul Knapp | x | Anne W., scribe | |
| Josh Mandel | x | John Moehrke | x | Brian Pech | |||
| x | Grahame Grieve | x | Eric Haas, Didi Davis | ||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 2018-10-31_FMG_concall
- Action items
- Grahame to put together something to describe a desired level of BR&R community engagement in order to own Substance
- Lloyd 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 contact Patient Care cochairs/modeling facilitator to ask them to update the resource relationships section of AdverseEvent
- Hans to reach out to OO on BiologicallyDerivedProduct at WGM
- Brian Post to add RIM scope and boundaries section to ChargeItemDefinition
- Hans to check with OO, CDS, and CQI about DeviceUseStatement at WGM
- Hans to check with Lorraine about EntryDefinition at WGM
- Brian Post to update Invoice
- Hans to follow up with OO on ObservationDefinition2 at WGM
- John to draft language regarding virtual Connectathons
- Lloyd to contact WGs to solicit missing resource proposals
- Review Items
- Discussion Topics
- Criteria for inclusion of extensions in core vs. IGs
- Review standard PSS form to suggest changes
- Setting expectations around community establishment and real-world testing before content is allowed to go to ballot
- 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
- Add Vocabulary Operations – Lloyd
- Update from EST on wiki question – Brian Pech
- MOTION to accept with those additions: Lloyd/Brian Pech
- Minutes from 2018-10-31_FMG_concall
- MOTION to approve: Lloyd/Brian Post
- VOTE: All in favor
- Action items
- Grahame to put together something to describe a desired level of BR&R community engagement in order to own Substance
- Carry forward
- Lloyd 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 contact Patient Care cochairs/modeling facilitator to ask them to update the resource relationships section of AdverseEvent
- Carry forward
- Hans to reach out to OO on BiologicallyDerivedProduct at WGM
- Carry forward
- Brian Post to add RIM scope and boundaries section to ChargeItemDefinition
- Carry forward
- Hans to check with OO, CDS, and CQI about DeviceUseStatement at WGM
- Carry forward
- Hans to check with Lorraine about EntryDefinition at WGM
- Carry forward
- Brian Post to update Invoice
- Carry forward
- Hans to follow up with OO on ObservationDefinition2 at WGM
- Carry forward
- John to draft language regarding virtual Connectathons
- Started a wiki page at http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Virtual_Connectathons. Will continue to work on it for review next week.
- ACTION: Review on 2018-11-14 call
- Started a wiki page at http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Virtual_Connectathons. Will continue to work on it for review next week.
- Lloyd to contact WGs to solicit missing resource proposals
- Lloyd did contact most WGs outside of BR&R. Do we want them to write up proposals since we may well not have all of them? Would prefer not to address until after the refactoring. General pattern is stuff that doesn’t have a proposal will get yanked but perhaps we’ll just ask them if they want stuff to stay until after the refactoring.
- Grahame to put together something to describe a desired level of BR&R community engagement in order to own Substance
- Review Items
- Discussion Topics
- Update from EST on wiki question
- Brian states the decision was you can generate wiki pages in github and Confluence. Lloyd: But should you? Isi there a reason why we would allow for wiki content to exist in Github as opposed to Confluence? Is there criteria for when it would be appropriate? Makes it harder to find stuff. Brian: The conversation was just that it had to be HL7 controlled. Lloyd asks Brian to take that question back – is it kosher, and should be have a policy on where information should go, and what’s the policy for if you want to put stuff elsewhere.
- Vocabulary Operations – Lloyd
- We have an outstanding negative from Epic challenging whether the terminology operations have met the criteria to allow them to go to Normative. Turns out we haven’t filled out the spreadsheet with all the criteria. Grahame is currently working to find five in production systems that use the operations. Grahame notes that he has five for expand and four for the others. Lloyd: So we’re in a situation where we haven’t met our criteria for FMM5, much less normative. Epic’s negative ballot is well founded in that we aren’t technically meeting our criteria. Grahame: They state that no one has done anything with them, but that’s not so. Lloyd: My leaning was that five was the bare minimum to show there’s a decent amount of implementation to take something normative. Grahame feels it would be poor form to reject them for having four vs. five. Need to clarify the process and tracking. Lloyd: We’ve said that FMG has the right to waive criteria if the proponent of a particular level has a pressing case why they believe that a different level is appropriate. We can provide a waiver for subsumes if we can’t find another production implementer of it. Need to make sure that the spreadsheet is fully filled in for every single artifact that went or goes normative. CodeSystem validate code and StructureDefinition validate need to be completed.
- MOTION to grant a waiver for the requirement for subsumes to have five production implementations: Lloyd/Brian Post
- ACTION: Add making sure that the spreadsheet is fully filled in for every single artifact that went or goes normative.
- VOTE: Hans abstains. Remaining in favor.
- We have an outstanding negative from Epic challenging whether the terminology operations have met the criteria to allow them to go to Normative. Turns out we haven’t filled out the spreadsheet with all the criteria. Grahame is currently working to find five in production systems that use the operations. Grahame notes that he has five for expand and four for the others. Lloyd: So we’re in a situation where we haven’t met our criteria for FMM5, much less normative. Epic’s negative ballot is well founded in that we aren’t technically meeting our criteria. Grahame: They state that no one has done anything with them, but that’s not so. Lloyd: My leaning was that five was the bare minimum to show there’s a decent amount of implementation to take something normative. Grahame feels it would be poor form to reject them for having four vs. five. Need to clarify the process and tracking. Lloyd: We’ve said that FMG has the right to waive criteria if the proponent of a particular level has a pressing case why they believe that a different level is appropriate. We can provide a waiver for subsumes if we can’t find another production implementer of it. Need to make sure that the spreadsheet is fully filled in for every single artifact that went or goes normative. CodeSystem validate code and StructureDefinition validate need to be completed.
- Lloyd notes that he received an invitation to an HL7-sponsored, invitation-only Connectathon for VHDR. Lloyd asks why it’s invite only? Eric states that space is limited. Lloyd: Why is it space limited if it’s virtual? Our general preference is open is better than not open. John: We do have the principle that FMG approves Connectathons. Has this been brought to us? Haven’t seen it here – Lloyd received the invitation. David: Do we want to go back to HL7 to ask why it’s invite only and why we haven’t received it for approval? Grahame: FMG approves Connectathons that count towards FMM level; otherwise, FMG isn’t required to approve Connectathons. But it’s reasonable for FMG to ask the EC why HL7 is choosing to sponsor a closed event on what grounds it chose to do that. Didi: Seems to be an ONC driven event, with responses going to Dan Chaput and she assumes they would want it to be tied to maturity level. Dave Hamill is listed on the bottom of the invitation as a contact as well. Grahame states we’ve discussed this with ONC before.
- ACTION: Lloyd to contact Dave and Wayne to ask for clarification on why it’s a closed event
- Criteria for inclusion of extensions in core vs. IGs
- Review standard PSS form to suggest changes
- Setting expectations around community establishment and real-world testing before content is allowed to go to ballot
- Update from EST on wiki question
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- Reviewed proposed Connectathon tracks
- Attachments: John asks about the relationship to DocumentReference? Shouldn’t have actor-specific resources. Do we need yet another way to do the same thing? David looks up previous tracks and it looks similar to what we’ve done in the past. Has never had DocumentReference.
- John to reach out to the WG to check re: the relationship to DocumentReference
- Patient: Looks good
- Clinical Genomics: Looks good
- EBMonFHIR: Looks good
- FHIR Documents: No track leads. No FHIR version. No related tracks. Review again to see if they’ve fleshed it out.
- IG Development: Not ready for review yet
- International Patient Summary: Looks good.
- Questionnaire: Looks good
- Terminology Services: Looks good
- CDS Hooks: Incomplete
- Clinical Reasoning: Looks good
- Coverage Requirements: Looks good
- Direct/Certificates: Would be a good implementation guide. Looks good with minor tidying up.
- LIVD: Looks good
- Attachments: John asks about the relationship to DocumentReference? Shouldn’t have actor-specific resources. Do we need yet another way to do the same thing? David looks up previous tracks and it looks similar to what we’ve done in the past. Has never had DocumentReference.
- Reviewed proposed Connectathon tracks
- 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
