This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "20180227 OO FHIR conCall"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Undo revision 154532 by Ehaas (talk))
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
'''Call in details: <br>Phone: +1 515) 739-1430, Passcode: 294586 '''<br/>
 
'''Call in details: <br>Phone: +1 515) 739-1430, Passcode: 294586 '''<br/>
 
'''Join the meeting at: <br>https://join.freeconferencecall.com/ord''' <br/>
 
'''Join the meeting at: <br>https://join.freeconferencecall.com/ord''' <br/>
| width="0%" colspan="1" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date: 2018/03/13'''<br/> ''' 02:00 PM (Eastern Time, GMT -04 DST)'''
+
| width="0%" colspan="1" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date: 2018/02/27'''<br/> ''' 02:00 PM (Eastern Time, GMT -04 DST)'''
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="3" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Quorum = chair + 4 '''yes'''
 
|colspan="3" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Quorum = chair + 4 '''yes'''
Line 23: Line 23:
 
|KD Nolan|| || ||
 
|KD Nolan|| || ||
 
|-
 
|-
|Hans Buitendijk|| || ||
+
|Hans Buitendijk||X || ||
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}
Line 33: Line 33:
 
|X||Eric Haas
 
|X||Eric Haas
 
|-
 
|-
|||Hans Buitendijk
+
|X||Hans Buitendijk
 
|-
 
|-
 
|||Jose Costa-Teixeira
 
|||Jose Costa-Teixeira
Line 45: Line 45:
 
|X||Kathy Walsh
 
|X||Kathy Walsh
 
|-
 
|-
|X||Marti Velezis
+
|||Marti Velezis
 
|-
 
|-
|||Bob Milius
+
|X||Bob Milius
 
|-
 
|-
|||Elliot Silver
+
|X||Elliot Silver
 
|-
 
|-
 
|X||Lou Bedor
 
|X||Lou Bedor
Line 55: Line 55:
 
|||Lisa Anderson
 
|||Lisa Anderson
 
|-
 
|-
|||Brian Reinhold
+
|X||Brian Reinhold
 
|-
 
|-
|||John Rhoads
+
|X||John Rhoads
 
|-
 
|-
|X||Bruce Mountjoy
+
|X||Kirt Shaper
 
|-
 
|-
|||Martin Rosner
+
|X||Martin Rosner
 
|-
 
|-
|X||Jack Wallace
+
|X||Robinette Renner
 
|-
 
|-
|X||Kathleen M
+
|X||David Burgess
 
|}
 
|}
 
== ==
 
== ==
Line 73: Line 73:
 
===Agenda===
 
===Agenda===
  
'''Device and UDI and DeviceComponent:'''
+
We have 2 outstanding Block Votes ( see prior emails ) which we will vote on on Thursday. 
  
  
Edit and review Device "notes to balloters"  text.
+
Here is an oveview of our trackers categorized by group and ordered by priority all need a vote on prior to Ballot:
  
3 options discussed:
+
# 3 group F = Focal subject trackers  critical
 +
# 2 Group I  critical and breaking change (rob is leading this since a vocab issue) require Community Consultation
 +
# 3 ready for vote (hoping on the OO on FHIR call)
 +
# 6 Block vote 2 not critical - vote on Thursday
 +
# 3 Block vote 3 one critical - vote on Thursday  ( includes workflow pattern for Observation which is critical but not substantive.) 
 +
# Another Group of  2 Device Trackers one of which was referred to the UDI call to disposition.  If we can dispose of it that would be great.
 +
# Another group of several catalog, and BRP issues  ( SpecimenDefinition, ObservationDefinition,BRP, EntryItem) Which I have referred to the respectiver subcommittees to disposition separately.  These have lower priority and will be handled last and may need to be deferred if we run out of time on Thursday
 +
# 2 group D deferred - this group will grow to include all the deferred items.
  
Whether the Device represents the device “instance” or the “kind”
+
==== Group F : Observation Subject or FocalSubject = Reference(Any) ====
  
Currently, the Device resource represents both an ‘instance’ of a device (e.g., an IM pin with serial number 123) and a ‘kind’ of device (e.g., 3ml syringes). The lists below identify the elements associated with kind and instance respectively. Note that both kind and instance related elements are typically present when representing instance of a device.  To clearly differentiate the ‘kind’ of device from the “instance’ of a device there are several proposals have been put forth:
+
this covers these trackers: [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=14863 GF#14863], [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=14443 GF#14443], [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=15162 GF#15162]
  
1) Create separate resources for kind vs instance of Device
+
* Substantive change to scope of Observation
 +
* driven by modelers and profilers not implementers
 +
* sought implementer feedback but no substantive feedback received
 +
* See [https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/implementers/topic/Proposal.20to.20make.20Observation.20Subject.20Reference(any) Zulip chat] for community discussion
 +
* ''Proposal'': OK I am going to present a couple of options to the OO WG either tomorrow or next Thursday which leaves everyone unhappy:
 +
** Option 1: keep focal-subject as an extension with Reference(Any) and add a bunch text saying basicaly not use this if there is a perfectly good resource that does the job. ( maybe provide an example or two) and the caveat that in the future will look at possibility of a new resource to handle these types observation that are really truly assessments ( OpenEHR Evaluation archetype or a slimmed down ClnicalAssessment or overloaded MeasureReport)
 +
** Option 2: promote focal-subject inline with Reference(Any) as a DSTU element and add a bunch text saying basically not use this if there is a perfectly good resource that does the job. ( maybe provide an example or two) and the caveat that in the future will look at possibility of a new resource to handle these types of assessments ( OpenEHR Evaluation archetype or a slimmed down ClnicalAssessment)
  
2) Create profile from the Device resource for representing a Device Kind
+
''Community preference is for Option 2''
  
3)  Reorder the elements and group by ‘kind’ and ‘instance’ within the Device resource.
+
EH/BM for option 2 as written: 5-0-7
  
UDI for multipart devices
+
==== Group I: Critical and breaking change to <code>Observation.dataAbsentReason</code> (rob is leading this since a vocab issue) ====
  
1) Group individual Devices in the Procedure resource. There would be as many devices as necessary represented, but each device will have zero to one DI and UDI.  There is no way to define the relationship between devices with DeviceComponent unless add a reference of DeviceComponent in Procedure.
+
[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=15567 #15567] data absent reason code, definition, hierarchy and value set updates [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=13521 #13521]
 
 
2) Make the Device a logical construct to support a device that has zero to one DIs (represent type) with multiple UDIs (instance).  
 
  
3) Make the Device allow multiple component Devices to represent a number of inter-related devices with the device system where each Component Device would have zero to one DIs with multiple UDIs. This option is similar to the
+
* Since is a ''required'' binding in Observation is breaking change.
 +
* recommendation is for OO to vote to make changes to codesystem and valueset as proposed. (preapplied) pending community consultation.
  
Merging DeviceComponent with Device
+
EH/HB: MOve as persuasive as dispositioned: 10-0-2
  
Similar to the 3rd option above for UDI for multipart devices,  there is discussion within the Devices working group to harmonize the representation Personal Healthcare Devices (PHD) with Point of Care Device  (POCD) by merging DeviceComponent within Device.
+
==== # ready for votes: ====
  
Next steps: Eric to edit, review with Marti and apply ballot notes to the build
+
* [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=15605 15605] reopen GF#14145 and redisposition as proposed
 +
** Discussed - reopened GF#14145 and made duplicate to #15605
 +
** reviewing the binding and datatype.  discussed use cases  will pick up on Thursday
  
'''Stopped here'''
+
=== Stopped here will pick up on Thursday ===
  
 +
* [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=15522 15522] Allow DiagnosticReport.result to be RiskAssessment too
 +
* [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=15602 15602] Remove DICOM mappings for Device and Substance
  
Next time...
+
==== Block votes ====
  
Ready to Vote:
+
* review WK patterns ( quickly )
 +
** Note all this has been preapplied for review in current build
 +
**
 +
 
 +
==== Device trackers ====
 +
 
 +
* [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=13965 13965] Multiple UDIs for Complex Devices
 +
** referred to UDI call for disposition
 +
* [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=15596 15596] Request cardinality of Device.type be changed from 0..1 to 0..*
 +
** requesting more detail on use case from submitter
 +
 
 +
==== clarification on what  needs to be deferred to next cycle: ====
 +
 
 +
TBD
  
* 15522 Allow DiagnosticReport.result to be RiskAssessment too  preapplied -subject to freeze
 
* Pulled from block B: 15515 %22Specimen+collection+method%22+value+set+needs+cleanup (Francois Macary) change to  Persuasive : essentially use the recommended VS as an example binding  preapplied -subject to freeze
 
* 15516 Remove+guidance+suggesting+codes+can+be+sent+in+Device.identifier (Lloyd McKenzie) Persuasive with Mod  Preapplied - not subject to freeze
 
* 15666  Add Location reference to Specimen preapplied -subject to freeze
 
  
Discuss:
 
* NEW 15681 add choice of duration to Observation.effective[x]
 
 
   
 
   
 
Back to [[OO_on_FHIR]]
 
Back to [[OO_on_FHIR]]

Latest revision as of 21:10, 13 March 2018

HL7 OO on FHIR (for Orders and Observations)

Call in details:
Phone: +1 515) 739-1430, Passcode: 294586

Join the meeting at:
https://join.freeconferencecall.com/ord

Date: 2018/02/27
02:00 PM (Eastern Time, GMT -04 DST)
Quorum = chair + 4 yes


scope="col" Co chairs Chair Notetaker
Riki Merrick
Rob Hausam X X
Lorraine Constable
Patrick Lloyd
KD Nolan
Hans Buitendijk X


Attendees
X Eric Haas
X Hans Buitendijk
Jose Costa-Teixeira
Dan Rutz
X Rob Hausam
Andrea Pitkus
X Kathy Walsh
Marti Velezis
X Bob Milius
X Elliot Silver
X Lou Bedor
Lisa Anderson
X Brian Reinhold
X John Rhoads
X Kirt Shaper
X Martin Rosner
X Robinette Renner
X David Burgess

  • Roll Call


Agenda

We have 2 outstanding Block Votes ( see prior emails ) which we will vote on on Thursday.


Here is an oveview of our trackers categorized by group and ordered by priority all need a vote on prior to Ballot:

  1. 3 group F = Focal subject trackers critical
  2. 2 Group I critical and breaking change (rob is leading this since a vocab issue) require Community Consultation
  3. 3 ready for vote (hoping on the OO on FHIR call)
  4. 6 Block vote 2 not critical - vote on Thursday
  5. 3 Block vote 3 one critical - vote on Thursday ( includes workflow pattern for Observation which is critical but not substantive.)
  6. Another Group of 2 Device Trackers one of which was referred to the UDI call to disposition. If we can dispose of it that would be great.
  7. Another group of several catalog, and BRP issues ( SpecimenDefinition, ObservationDefinition,BRP, EntryItem) Which I have referred to the respectiver subcommittees to disposition separately. These have lower priority and will be handled last and may need to be deferred if we run out of time on Thursday
  8. 2 group D deferred - this group will grow to include all the deferred items.

Group F : Observation Subject or FocalSubject = Reference(Any)

this covers these trackers: GF#14863, GF#14443, GF#15162

  • Substantive change to scope of Observation
  • driven by modelers and profilers not implementers
  • sought implementer feedback but no substantive feedback received
  • See Zulip chat for community discussion
  • Proposal: OK I am going to present a couple of options to the OO WG either tomorrow or next Thursday which leaves everyone unhappy:
    • Option 1: keep focal-subject as an extension with Reference(Any) and add a bunch text saying basicaly not use this if there is a perfectly good resource that does the job. ( maybe provide an example or two) and the caveat that in the future will look at possibility of a new resource to handle these types observation that are really truly assessments ( OpenEHR Evaluation archetype or a slimmed down ClnicalAssessment or overloaded MeasureReport)
    • Option 2: promote focal-subject inline with Reference(Any) as a DSTU element and add a bunch text saying basically not use this if there is a perfectly good resource that does the job. ( maybe provide an example or two) and the caveat that in the future will look at possibility of a new resource to handle these types of assessments ( OpenEHR Evaluation archetype or a slimmed down ClnicalAssessment)

Community preference is for Option 2

EH/BM for option 2 as written: 5-0-7

Group I: Critical and breaking change to Observation.dataAbsentReason (rob is leading this since a vocab issue)

#15567 data absent reason code, definition, hierarchy and value set updates #13521

  • Since is a required binding in Observation is breaking change.
  • recommendation is for OO to vote to make changes to codesystem and valueset as proposed. (preapplied) pending community consultation.

EH/HB: MOve as persuasive as dispositioned: 10-0-2

# ready for votes:

  • 15605 reopen GF#14145 and redisposition as proposed
    • Discussed - reopened GF#14145 and made duplicate to #15605
    • reviewing the binding and datatype. discussed use cases will pick up on Thursday

Stopped here will pick up on Thursday

  • 15522 Allow DiagnosticReport.result to be RiskAssessment too
  • 15602 Remove DICOM mappings for Device and Substance

Block votes

  • review WK patterns ( quickly )
    • Note all this has been preapplied for review in current build

Device trackers

  • 13965 Multiple UDIs for Complex Devices
    • referred to UDI call for disposition
  • 15596 Request cardinality of Device.type be changed from 0..1 to 0..*
    • requesting more detail on use case from submitter

clarification on what needs to be deferred to next cycle:

TBD


Back to OO_on_FHIR