FHIR Infrastructure Minutes WGM 201605
FHIR Infrastructure Conference Call 3:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)
- Mon Q1 - FHIR Tracker items
- Mon Q2 - FHIR Tracker items
- Mon Q3 - FHIR Workflow
- Mon Q4 - FHIR Workflow
- Chair/Scribe for Q1/Q2: Ewout
- Chair/Scribe for Q3/Q4: Lloyd
- Discussion of use case for reverse chaining queries; syntax; and our process for adding new features to the search API. Decision: some server developers will try this out, seek input from client developers, and see what the experience shows.
- Lloyd presented the outcomes of the FHIR Workflow task force to date
- Keith: Rename "category" to "stage" when we're talking about requests
- Why are we combining proposal/plan/order?
- Not thrilled with xxxRequest as a name when it's not actually the request, it's the authorization
- Can't call it xxxAuthorization because plans and proposals aren't really authorizations. Open to a better name, but haven't come up with one. Feel free to suggest
- Why do we need a tag?
- Tags are needed to distinguish from request instances that are there as supporting information, background, no-longer actionable from those that are actionable?
- Why not tag the ones that aren't actionable?
- The safest thing is for instances to be non-actionable. Lots of instances will be passed around, situation where they need to be actionable is limited.
- Will the simple "tag-based" approach be considered as valid as using Task?
- Yes. All 4 mechanisms are valid
- Will we define standard operations and messages for doing this?
- Maybe - we haven't really looked at those yet
- We will need lots of examples
- Yes we will. Supplying use-cases and assisting would be appreciated
- Why is reason 0..1 instead of 0..*?
- Could increase. Most existing models use 0..1 - what's 80% for your resource?
- "failed" isn't an ideal status name. Perhaps "aborted"?
- Need to capture reason for statuses other than failure
- Where are things with combining Protocol & Orderset?
- CDS is evaluating it. Lloyd & Bryn think it's a good idea
Worked through slides 5-7 and, after discussion, had no objections other than the ones discussed/addressed above.
- Rob McClure
- Peter Jordan
- Dan Vreeman
- Tim Blake
- Mark Shafarman
- Birtel Ripper
- Andrew MacClean
- Sandy Stuart
- Susan Barber
- Heather Grain
- Carmela Couderc
- Rob Hausam
- Jon Zammit
- Michael Lawley
- Linda Bird
- Yunwei Wong
- Greg Gustafson
- Russ Hamm
- Ted Klein
- Oyvind Passie
- Lloyd McKenzie
- Grahame Grieve
- Mark Kramer
- Daniel Karlsson
- Dennis Patterson
- Brian Wright
- Harold Solbrig
Motion: Define these code system properties for code systems General - inactive : true (default = false) - deprecated : date (can populate for v2 and v3) HL7 code systems (url) - notSelectable : true (default = false)
Define a FHIR code sytem for this and use the code system URL in the property identifiers, and update all the generation code accordingly
Moved Lloyd Mckenzie / Rob Hausam - 26 / 0/ 3
vesrion of Snomed CT - enforce that international value sets only refer directly to core concepts or editions - ensure that expansions in international version are core only, or are labelled as to which version they come from - mark all US specific value sets with US realm edition URI and make license explicit - HTA to procure appropriate license for US specific IGs that we already publish. (And work with AU to clarify status) - if this is not executed prior to STU 3, include discussion of what is in progress
Motion : Rob Hausam / Harold Solbrig : 28-0-1
- process for migrating / managing fhir terminologies - should they still go to v3? - propose alternative review process
Lloyd, Rob H, Ted, Grahame to design a variant form for harmonization for July and we exercise this on several FHIR code systems. FMG to choose. Lessons learned forward to TQA for further progression
Motion: Rob Hausam / Lloyd Mckenzie : 27-0-0