This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "CMHAFF call, Thursday, Oct 19"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 19: Line 19:
 
**DKT49 -- Initial set of definitions. Check for important missing terms.
 
**DKT49 -- Initial set of definitions. Check for important missing terms.
 
**DKT50 -- Platform-specific considerations
 
**DKT50 -- Platform-specific considerations
*Review of changes made, based on Adamu's recommendations from U.K. PAS277 Guidelines. Comments have been added, but specific wording has not all been incorporated yet. Adamu also sent an email on October 6th that we should consider (copied below)
+
**Review of changes made, based on Adamu's recommendations from U.K. PAS277 Guidelines. Comments have been added, but specific wording has not all been incorporated yet.
 
 
== Adamu's Oct 6th Email ==
 
 
 
Hi all,
 
Coming back to PAS document and the general discussion about cMHAFF .
 
 
I think in general we need to figure out how we could leverage or incorporate or complement PAS as whole ( without UK specific standards) into cMHAFF . Not for this ballot session but may be during the resolution of the comments after January. PAS has a bit different style from all the specs we’ve looked at, in a sense that it looks at the project life cycle of the apps..  Product development in fact will become highly relevant in light of FDA precertification program : https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DigitalHealth/DigitalHealthPreCertProgram/Default.htm  and some companies have already been selected : https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm577480.htm
 
 
In essence, FDA will follow & check your SW design and process and certifies it (like ISO certification ) so they don’t have to certify each individual product coming from that company. Any product from that will go directly to the market and FDA will go straight to post market data collection phase. This  makes SW process/product development life cycle very key or central here …and that is where PAS comes in for health and wellness apps.
 
 
cMHAFF covers almost everything from PAS i.e. from the consumer or market perspective => translated backwards to what developer should do before releasing the product/app to the market .  I think we can plug PAS ( or some part of it ) in 3.2  to guide the developer on what process to follow to meet cMHAFF conformance at the front end . Or we can also check PAS Annex A (informative ) : relation between PAS and IEC 62304  i.e. how PAS selected keys parts and light version of IEC 62304
 
 
I don’t know how in practice we can do this but definitely we should not re-do the work but smartly reference or incorporate or point to the developer what process to follow in product development …( liaison or work together to pick some parts into cMHAFF annex or direct reference)
 
 
Please , let’s have a look as general task  outside the current ballot preparation . I think after January we need to see how to proceed to  position cMHAFF to not only address current FDA direction but a  “go to” framework for various app stakeholders in the consumer health industry 
 
 
My two cents…
 
 
/Adamu
 

Revision as of 17:23, 20 October 2017

ATTENDEES: David Tao, Frank Pfloeg, Adamu Haruna

AGENDA

  • Finish review of short descriptions (3.4.6 and following) -- DONE. Revisions made and accepted.
  • Review cMHAFF Label, a visual summary of key facts about an app and its conformance to cMHAFF (David)
    • Review of Label format and "consumer friendly language" descriptions (new Section 2.2 in cMHAFF document), including the notes that suggest how a section could be scored Green, Yellow, or Red, and who should decide (self-attestation vs inspection vs test vs ____?). SEE DISCUSSION IN SUB-BULLETS BELOW.
      • RED is easy to define. The app fails to meet one or more of the applicable SHALL conformance statements. "Applicable SHALL" includes the SHALL[IF] statements for which the [IF] condition is true.
      • GREEN vs YELLOW is trickier. We initially proposed GREEN for the app meeting all applicable SHALLs and SHOULDS, and YELLOW for the app meeting all applicable SHALLs but not all applicable SHOULDS. But we questioned whether that would be too stringent, causing some excellent apps to be yellow if they failed one SHOULD recommendation. We will revisit and consider an alternative such as a percentage of SHOULDS, or else a custom definition of GREEN vs YELLOW for each category.
      • Adamu pointed out that there may be a disconnect between the cMHAFF categories, which are intended for DEVELOPERS, vs the label which is intended for CONSUMERS. Perhaps the consumer does not need to see all 19 categories. Some could be combined into higher level concepts that consumers care about, such as "TRUST" (e.g., combining Authentication, Authorization, Security at Rest, Security in Transit, Provenance, Audit). "PRODUCT INFORMATION," "PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT" (4 categories), etc.
    • Work through two sections as examplars: Product Information and User Authorization (Consent) for Data Collection and Use, to work through how the label score might be determined by assessment against conformance statements. (STARTED BUT NOT FINISHED)
  • Review and decision on specific comments (RAN OUT OF TIME -- DEFER UNTIL NEXT WEEK)
    • DKT7 -- Environmental Scan
    • DKT8 -- Are all aspects of the product development life cycle appropriate to mention, if there are not corresponding conformance criteria for all of them?
    • DKT9 -- Secure Coding practices reference
    • DKT13&14 -- Risk Management references
    • DKT22 -- Liability discussion. Frank disputes this one. Appropriate?
    • DKT31 -- Strong authentication options
    • DKT49 -- Initial set of definitions. Check for important missing terms.
    • DKT50 -- Platform-specific considerations
    • Review of changes made, based on Adamu's recommendations from U.K. PAS277 Guidelines. Comments have been added, but specific wording has not all been incorporated yet.