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

April 6th CBCC Conference Call

From HL7Wiki
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Community-Based Collaborative Care Working Group Meeting

Back to CBCC Main Page

Attendees

Agenda

  1. (05 min) Roll Call & Accept Agenda
  2. (55 min) Update of Ongoing Projects

Minutes

1. Action Items

  1. Suzanne to follow up with the Steering Division as to the status of the Privacy Policy Reference Catalog scope statement
  2. TEAM: Reminder

2. Resolutions - none

3. Updates/Discussion

Privacy Policy Reference Catalog

  • Pat: Nothing to report. Still haven’t heard anything back from the Steering Division following final submission of the updated scope statement.

PASS Audit update

  • Pat: Monday’s PASS meeting was canceled due to Easter holiday in Canada. Don and I have been working out the details of the Platform Independent Model (PIM) and vocabulary and are going to produce a next draft for review on Thursday, April 8.
    • Now that the Composite Security and Privacy DAM has been published, I am going to go back to make sure that the conceptual model within PASS Audit is in synch with the DAM.
    • Ultimate goal is to produce this ballot by June that includes a conceptual model, PIM and a platform-specific (at least one) instance ready to go for ballot in September 2010.

CDA R2 Implementation Guide for Consent Directives

  • Serafina: The IG has been updated and is now published on the HL7 Ballot site (see link above). There were substantive changes based on ballot reconciliation in January, so this is now re-balloted at level 2 DSTU. This will be handled like any other ballot per the usual process, so comments should be entered on the ballot site.
  • Mike: Are comments allowed only against those substantive changes, or are comments allowed against the entire document?
  • Serafina: Based on the Governance and Operations Manual (GOM), we have two choices:
  1. We can close the ballot to those who have not yet voted before (this is not something that is generally done however) or
  2. We have the choice to dispose of the new comments as appropriate to the integrity of the document. Since this is a DSTU ballot, it only needs to pass with 60% affirmative votes. If the a similar comment is submitted on the second ballot (by any reviewer), we can always refer back to the previous disposition.
  • There were no other items to discuss. Serafina motioned to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Don.

Meeting was adjourned at 2:30 PM EDT

No significant motions or decisions were made

Back to CBCC Main Page