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

CMHAFF call, Tuesday June 20

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 17:31, 21 June 2017 by David tao (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Attendees: David Tao, Gora Datta, Frank Pfloeg (Netherlands), Reed Gelzer


  • Update on Friday's call -- plan to go for STU in January
  • Discussion of European response to request for participation thus far (Adamu, Frank Ploeg...). The ideal time would be 1-3 hours earlier than the current Tuesday 4pm USA Eastern Time. David will revisit the meeting time in a Doodle Poll.
  • Review of French (HAS) mHealth Good Practice Guidelines) and impact on cMHAFF.
    • Should we adopt the 3 "levels of criticality" (or similar concept) for cMHAFF? -- Consensus is YES. However, clearer descriptions of each level (and instructions on how to triage apps into those levels) are needed.
    • Which of the French categories are applicable to cMHAFF and which are not? -- To be determined. David took a preliminary cut in his comments on the document.
  • How many other sources do we need to review, to due "due diligence" without being overwhelmed with reading and "analysis paralysis?" The participants on the call felt that the following should be reviewed. Many are posted on this page:
    • HAS Guidelines. This includes references to some other guidelines, including German*
    • EC Draft mHealth Guidelines (from Frank), with disclaimer that it is not official or published. This includes references to some other guidelines. Frank will also send a spreadsheet of questions that supplement that document. It is OK to post this on the Wiki.
    • German guidelines*
    • UK Guidelines
    • Andalusia project
    • Catalonia project
    • Finnish certification criteria (if translated into English in time)
  • Items planned for next week (June 27)
    • David will present the HAS Categories (14) and the cMHAFF categories (17) side by side, indicating areas of commonality and differences. In general, HAS is much more granular on areas such as Product Description and Health Content, whereas cMHAFF is more granular in Security and Privacy areas.
    • Request for volunteers to recommend which other references (from French bibliography) to review for cMHAFF.
    • Request for volunteers to "divide and conquer" re mapping of French guidelines and recommendations for incorporation into cMHAFF. The end result must be non-realm-specific conformance criteria (though country-specific EXAMPLES, e.g., USA and France, are permissible). Perhaps borrow from EHRS-FM language.