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

20141029 FMG concall

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 16:16, 31 October 2014 by Annewiz (talk | contribs) (→‎Next Steps)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597
(voice and screen)

Date: 2014-10-29
Time: 1:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s):
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs x David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio Woody Beeler,
Dave Shaver
FGB Co-chairs		 . John Quinn, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
x Hans Buitendijk Hugh Glover x Paul Knapp x Anne Wizauer, scribe
Josh Mandel x John Moehrke Brian Pech x Lynn Laakso

Agenda

  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

  • Roll Call: Quroum reached at 12:35. Lloyd will chair the call.
  • Agenda Check: Lloyd will send out additional items to review offline to add to the agenda next week. Paul will mention the TSC's feelings about the FHIR Resource Proposal. David would like to discuss Connectathon. Paul is adding category tags into FHIR Proposal so they appear on the list. Lloyd moves to approve; David seconds.
  • Minutes from 20141022_FMG_concall. John Moehrke moves to approve; Paul seconds.
  • Administrative
    • Action items
    • Paul states that the FHIR Resource Proposal was presented to TSC. It has gone off to ARB and PLA to get their thoughts, as well as out for FTSD input. There was some expectation that there was more clarity needed in the body of the proposal itself. This may be worked out in FTSD. In general, it is seen as needed and appropriate but needed clarification. Lloyd - will we get to see revisions before it goes to final TSC vote? Paul affirms. Lloyd - do we have anyone from FMG who will be at PLA? Paul states he is often at the PLA calls, but we may need someone from core there as well. It would be good to have Lloyd on the FTSD call next Tuesday; Lloyd agrees to attend.
      • Paul will submit a change request on OperationOutcome that makes clear what its intended scope of use is, and on contraindication - when is contraindicaton appropriate vs. OperationOutcome. Paul will complete for next week: Will complete for next week.
      • Finish Review of Appointment_FHIR_Resource_Proposal: Group discussed relationship to iCal standard. Paul: we should make sure we can provide information to an iCal interface, but we shouldn't necessarily drop what we're doing and replace with iCal. David: should we state why we need to have a FHIR resource on it? Lloyd: To me, there is a corollary here with what we did with security - we didn't reinvent it, we did it from a FHIR perspective. iCal is a wire syntax; we could use iCal as a reference for relevant data. If it's just a syntax, then the corollary would be similar to what we have for vCard. Given that we would have a need to embed appt. information inside documents and messages which wouldn't have been the case for permission type information, it's reasonable to say that this should be a resource. We need to address the question of whether we are comfortable with there being a resource in this space or if we should leave it outside of FHIR. Lloyd is comfortable having a resource for FHIR that manipulates scheduling information inside all of FHIR's communications paradigms. His concern is not that they weren't aligned with iCal but that they weren't aligned with the typical pattern that we've used elsewhere in FHIR for request response, and the reason for that was the alignment with iCal. Choices are either you coordinate with it or replace what you were doing with it. Paul presumes that they will coordinate with it since they didn't feel replacement was appropriate. Lloyd wants them to state that their approach does differ from the typical request/response paradigm used elsewhere in FHIR and why. In most circumstances there is a resource representing the request and a resource representing the thing that occurs. This structure doesn't work the same way; the appointment isn't framed as a request - it is being created as a thing that exists. The responses are not managed in the typical way through order response workflow. It is not following the same pattern as we do in observations, medications, nutrition, claims. The appointment set of resources doesn't follow the typical request response resource. Perhaps encounter should also refer back to the appointment? If an appointment is made for a procedure, the procedure must be described as well. How does the appointment relate to the order for the procedure? The appointment points to a time and a list of activities - are those activities orders? 1) We need to identify the relationship between the appointment-related resources and the various order/request resources including referral request, procedure order, diagnostic order, and care plan. 2) There is also a need to clarify how the appointment-related resources relate to encounter, and 3) We need documented how the appointment resources fit into the typical request response paradigm used elsewhere; or if they don't, for that to be clearly documented and explained in the resource description. 4) What is the relationship between service and organization? The proposal itself isn't clear. Proposal will be pushed back for further clarification based upon this discussion; motion moved by Paul, Hans seconds. No objections or abstentions.
  • Project Review
    • Project Approval Request for Data Access Framework (DAF) FHIR Profile at Project Insight #1143 and TSC Tracker 3669. Lloyd discloses he is a paid resource on how to create these profiles so he will abstain. Have they stated that they will coordinate with WGs responsible for their respective resources? Lloyd would like to see a commitment to engagement with the WGs whose resources are being profiled. Paul states that we should look at going ahead with development and revisit for publication. When profiles are created on resources which are owned by a WG, what do we expect in terms of the right or responsibility of that WG to review/approve profiles? Lloyd states that if HL7 is publishing it, then the WG that has custodianship of the resource should have the opportunity to review and comment on the content before it goes out to ballot. John suggests that the WG may be held responsible for published profiles? Lloyd replies that the sponsor(owner) of the artifact may not always be the one who will be responsible for profile maintenance long-term - however, they should have the opportunity to review the content and that the use of their resource is consistent with their intention. Paul: How do we make that occur? Lloyd: We start by making sure in the PSS that the WGs are listed as interested parties, so the project team has talked to them and alerted them that the work will be done, followed by sharing progress. Paul: the project owns the responsibility of engaging the WGs. Lloyd remembers that we have that policy somewhere on the Wiki. Paul states we should look at that and make sure that we can readily determine whose resources are being profiled and under review for their review before balloting. Ballot cannot be the only checkpoint. Decision: We request that all WGs who are owners of resources being profiled for this work be listed as interested parties, and that material be made available for WG review several weeks before ballot for their feedback. David moves to approve; Paul seconds. Paul action item: Create tracker item to list WG responsible for a resource or profile.

Hans moves to adjourn; Paul seconds.

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Connectathon discussion (Dave's request from last week; ran out of time)
  • Lloyd to attend FTSD call next Tuesday to discuss FHIR Resource Proposal
  • Paul to submit change request on OperationOutcome that makes clear what its intended scope of use is, and on contraindication - when is contraindicaton appropriate vs. OperationOutcome.
  • Anne to email for clarification requests for Appointment_FHIR_Resource_Proposal needed before approval can be made. (Completed 10/29/14)
  • Paul to create tracker item to list WG responsible for a resource or profile


Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

20141105 FMG concall


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Connectathon discussion (Dave's request for today; ran out of time)
  • Lloyd to attend FTSD call next Tuesday to discuss FHIR Resource Proposal
  • Paul to submit change request on OperationOutcome that makes clear what its intended scope of use is, and on contraindication - when is contraindicaton appropriate vs. OperationOutcome.
  • Anne to email for clarification requests for Appointment_FHIR_Resource_Proposal needed before approval can be made. (Completed 10/29/14)
  • Paul to create tracker item to list WG responsible for a resource or profile


Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

20141105 FMG concall


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=20141029_FMG_concall&oldid=92675"