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

2013-9-23 User Group Task Force WGM mtg

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 00:13, 17 January 2014 by Jnhatem (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • Open Forum Discussion about HL7User Group
  • Seeking volunteers for the HL7 UG Taskforce


  • John Hatem (chair), Rene Spronk, Keith Boone, Nathan Bunker, Benjamin Flessner, Julie Crouse, Eligio Becerra, Pete Goldschmidt, Bonnie McAllister, Virginia Riehl, Mark McDougal, Karen Van Hentenryck

Minutes/Conclusions Reached

  • All folks introduced themselves.
  • John Hatem presented introductory slides to provide context for the HL7 User Group discussion.
    • The topics ranged from:
      • Definition of a User Group
      • Focus on implementers
      • Other types of communities ‘may’ be possible, but the UG communities will not be focused on developing standards
      • In what type of forum will the UG communities meet?
        • Virtual
        • Face to face
          • Are the face to face meetings local, regional, national, or global?
      • Will there be a list serv or other social media site for the various UG communities?
        • Is this one UG social media environment? Or multiple environments
      • Should there be a UG governance structure e.g. president, president-elect, secretary, treasure?
      • Relationship of the UG to other entities.
        • hat is the formal relationship to HL7 international?
        • What is the formal relationship to the HL7 affiliates?
        • Suggestion was to do a survey of how other groups within HL7 are meeting the UG needs today?
      • What topics should the UG’s cover?
        • UG determine the agenda(s) for their groups
        • Is there a membership cost to join the UG?
        • All existing HL7 members are included in the UG communities
        • All non HL7 members may be required
  • Notes from Virginia Riehl follow - will be consolidated above in the future.

a. Keith – suggested geographic groups with monthly meetings. Provide access to HL7 experts, use of HL7 materials. Could use a franchise model

b. UK Person – ITK is very confusing. Need support for entry level developers

c. Julie Crouse – Asked if this was the same as tutorials. John – Said there would still be tutorials

d. Julie – Likes virtual because it is real time. Many users will not be able to travel

e. Rene – Need an in-person meeting. Phone meetings are hard to schedule. Have out of cycle meetings. Some topics are locally relevant. Should piggyback on other meetings

f. Keith – Could have regional and national meetings

g. UK person – Clinicians do not have time to meet during the week. Would need to hold weekend meetings.

h. Nathan – Keep dues small

i. Rene – There is overlap with the affiliates. User Groups are a large part of what they do.

j. Julie – Should do an inventory of what is out there

k. Nathan – Immunization Registry Association – Would like to know about real world experiences?

l. Julie – Should have a list of other organizations that we would like to work with

m. NQF person – NQF is also working on a user group. This is important to those who are new to standards.

n. Vertical vs. Areas of Interest

o. John – Should have both

p. Rene – Have Connectathon at user group meetings.

q. ???? – may need different approaches for different geography, e.g., rural

r. Discussion of bundling other benefits with user group membership indicated strong preference to NOT bundle benefits to keep costs low.

s. Other points

i. User groups should provide feedback to WGs ii. Dues should be low iii. Need to determine the role of vendors iv. Can provide examples of successes and failures