Difference between revisions of "20150218 FMG concall"
|Line 62:||Line 62:|
Revision as of 17:28, 19 February 2015
|HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes
|Date: 2015-02-18 |
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
|Chair:||Note taker(s): Anne|
|Quorum = chair + 4||yes/no|
|Co chairs||David Hay||Lloyd McKenzie|
|.||John Quinn, CTO|
|Hans Buitendijk||Hugh Glover||Paul Knapp||Anne W., scribe|
|Josh Mandel||John Moehrke||Brian Pech||Brian Postelthwaite|
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 20150211_FMG_concall
- Action items
- Lloyd to send out a reminder to WGs regarding their roles
- Invite representative to discuss approval item
- Changes to Mission and Charter after FTSD review will be brought back next week
- Lloyd will report back regarding Ewout and Rene's response regarding Connectathon scenarios for Paris
- Anne to go through past minutes to clarify status of Resource/Profile statuses
- Lloyd to send out QA spreadhseet to co-chairs and committers
- Anne to verify if all WGs listed as having an active PSS actually have one
- Approval Items
- Action items
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
- AOB (Any Other Business)
- Agenda check – add clinician Connectathon tooling, . David moves to accept agenda; Paul seconds. No objections/abstentions.
- Minutes from 2/11: Anne to add ballot frequency to agenda of next call. Motion to approve by Brian Pech, second by Brian Post. No objections, Paul abstained due to driving.
- Lloyd working on email reminder to WGs regarding their roles.
- Mission and Charter – approved by FTSD. Changes made were quite small. Now is on to ArB and TSC for review.
- Ewout and Rene feel V2 mapping may be a reasonable theme for Paris Connectathon. Good opportunity to exercise some of the messaging infrastructure and mappings. Do we want to move that the themes would be devices and V2 interfacing? David thinks this would be good. Potential conflict of interest – David’s company is working on V2 to FHIR translations. April Connectathon registration will be open soon. Will Smart Security stuff be ready for that? Josh states that it should be in a working state with some tweaks between now and then; should be ready for a track. We will need to do Patient, some people want to bring in Devices; we can do Smart and V2. That gives us four tracks. Josh moves that we move forward with those tracks, Brian Post seconds. No objections; David abstains.
- In circumstances where we determine a resource proposal is not approved, we can 1) let it go forward; 2) we can say it can be included as a draft; 3) we can not include it.
- Approved by group: Coverage, eligibilities, enrollments, explantion of benefit, financial attachment, payment notice pended request, readjudicate, reconciliation reversal, status request and response, vision Prescription, oralHealthClaim, payment notice
- AppointmentResponse: make sure that WG documented in the resources how their appointment/ApprointmentResponse behaved differently than order response paradigm. Commitment has been made to do that; Schedule and Slot as well. Brian Post moves to approve the trio; Paul seconds. None opposed or abstained. Anne to remove pending from 20140910 concall.
- BodySite: Discussion over whether it should be a structure or a resource – how will it be tracked as a resource? Lloyd states that most of the time it is a structure, but we have several use cases where systems do track, with identifiers, specific body sites – for example, fetuses, tumors, clinical trials. Still part of the patient’s record, but it does have its own identifier. This did come in past the deadline. It could go into the ballot as draft or as DSTU. Paul would like to see them continue to work on this – has some difficulty with the name – maybe should be BodyPart. And it has to point to patient. It’s a resource because it’s an identified instance as long as it points to the patient. Should clearly identify meaning in the text. Approve them to go forward and let the community weigh in. Lloyd submitted change request to include linkage to patient. Will raise the question about whether or not BodyPart may be less code-ish. Motion from Paul to approve with a suggestion to consider renaming to something that doesn’t collide with bodysite domain such as BodyPart; David seconds. No objections or abstentions.
- Ken will likely be at FGB on Monday to discuss issue of spreadsheet reconciliation. Lloyd posted draft identifying our issues with spreadsheet on skypechat. We are seeking permission to use alternative method. Organization has ballot process, and we must follow it or suggest changes that can be enacted. We can’t follow a new process until it is an agreed process. Must be put forward, reviewed, and tooling created. Is there agreement around the concerns Lloyd listed as our problems with the existing process?
Can we point to things that are closer to what we need? We can make gforge tracker work. Something like github would be better yet. Brian Pech suggests product lines/product families that may have similar pains with the process – acknowledges different time cycles as an issue. If we’re going to use tracker, we need to assess whether it can handle volume without crashing. Will need backup spreadsheets as long as we’re using gforge. Lloyd will write up what is reasonable and technically achievable as an interim solution for the next DSTU. Not looking to bypass ballot website or people submitting their comments in spreadsheets, although we’ll encourage them to submit comments in spreadsheets that reference trackers. Lloyd will send draft out of what is reasonable for the May cycle.
|Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)|
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2015 Health Level Seven® International