This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

20120303 templates minutes

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 06:22, 27 April 2012 by CorinneEGower (talk | contribs) (→‎Minutes Template)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Minutes Template

Meeting Information

HL7 Templates Working Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Cyberspace

Date: 2012-03-30
Time: 3:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Mark Shafarman Note taker(s) Mark Shafarman
Attendee Name Affiliation
yes Shafarman, Mark Shafarman Consulting, Inc.
yes Heitmann, Kai HL7 Germany
yes Stechishin, Andy
yes Roberts, John
yes Lynch, Cecil
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes


Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. We continued discussion of the use of "parameterized templates" in the next Structured Documents ballot for eMeasures (QRDA). There was a strong preference to not misuse the OID extension for semantically meaningful data. Cecil will discuss this issue with the ARB. Kai also noted that it should be taken up with the ARB, since it is also a universal realm issue: i.e., this usage would be US-realm, but it would also have consequences for implementers in the EU. Mark offered to draft a paragraph describing this issue (still to do).
  2. Cecil described work in Australia that supports local EMR and related systems ability to persist the documents that use specific templates. This is a conformance requirement to persist Australian PHR documents so that the system can use all of the data elements, and also so that changes in templates can be tracked and implemented by all systems receiving the various CDA documents using the changed templates the participating systems make use of a "package" which has all the information needed to use a given template. It contains the w3c schema, an implementation guide, an XML configuration file, and additional metadata (both in human and machine readable forms)
  3. Kai asked if the Australian experience is mature enough to be shared. He noted that the DECOR project as a proof of concept has been used since 2008.
  4. Both the DECOR and the Australian project include terminology experts as well as health information experts, and both involve clinicians at the initial specification level.
  5. Further discussion centered on the experience gained in both projects. It was noted that the MIF (or MIF2) is not sufficient for implementable template definitions. The OWL language can support implementation, but it is too complex for the 'average' implementer. What is needed is a canonical format for a template's definition that is easily implementable.
  6. next steps: i) compare the EU and the Australian experiences for both 'lessons learned' and one or more implementable templates ITS methodologies. ii) do same with the templates (and templates registry) metadata aspects of both projects.