This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "February 4, 2016, Agenda"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 9: Line 9:
  
 
=Attendees:=
 
=Attendees:=
*
+
* Hans Buitendijk
*
+
* Terrie Reed
*
+
* Behnaz Minaei
*
+
* Ben Moscovittch
*
+
* Chris Melo
 +
* Koichiro Matsumoto
 +
* Martha Velezis
 +
* Myron Fynseth
 +
* Scott Brown
 +
* Steve Rosenberg
 +
 
  
 
=Meeting Discussion:=
 
=Meeting Discussion:=
Line 20: Line 26:
 
*Review Call for Participation to ord, devices, pharmacy
 
*Review Call for Participation to ord, devices, pharmacy
 
*Review any use cases received, Prioritize
 
*Review any use cases received, Prioritize
 +
** Line 8 is considered low priority.  Follow-up questions:
 +
*** Do we care about reimbursement number as part of the UDI carrier?
 +
*** Is FDA the right assigning authority, or should it be the issueing agency to ensure implants from US, Brazil, Japan, etc. can be consistently interpreted.
 +
** Line 9 is considered.  Follow-up questions:
 +
*** Would this be just be on the attachment, or in the core of the administrative X12 transaction?
 +
*** Either way, would that be sufficient to feed, or do we need more.
 +
** X12 items can be used to help justify priority, but do not seem to state specific use cases themselves.
 +
** We should have a claims submisssion vs. an analytical data collection use case.  The first may be of higher priority than the second.
 +
** Suggest to focus on the core flow first and then on analytical flows (which may result in enrichment of basic capabilities).
 
*Next Steps Planning
 
*Next Steps Planning
  
 
=Action Items:=
 
=Action Items:=
 
*Confirm whether or not the PSS has been approved and submitted to the TSC for approval in time for this Ballot Cycle  
 
*Confirm whether or not the PSS has been approved and submitted to the TSC for approval in time for this Ballot Cycle  
 +
** While submitted mid-December, it did not go out for SSD-SD vote until last Friday.  Deadline for votes is Feb 8.  Then it will go to TSC.  It is also in FMG's queue for approval given potential FHIR involvement / impact.
 
*Request new listserv for the UDI Use Cases Project (Patrick sent initial email 1/28, followup 2/2)  
 
*Request new listserv for the UDI Use Cases Project (Patrick sent initial email 1/28, followup 2/2)  
 +
** Done.  udi@lists.hl7.org
 +
** Please sign up.
 
*Confirm that the UDI Task Force will be developing 1) UDI DAM and 2) UDI Implementation Guide (to include harmonization across v2, v3, CDA and FHIR)  
 
*Confirm that the UDI Task Force will be developing 1) UDI DAM and 2) UDI Implementation Guide (to include harmonization across v2, v3, CDA and FHIR)  
 
*Need to spin off a PSS for the C-CDA to address the individual UDI components (this will be a dependency for IG related work) - Request Paul K. update us on this item  
 
*Need to spin off a PSS for the C-CDA to address the individual UDI components (this will be a dependency for IG related work) - Request Paul K. update us on this item  
 +
** Not done yet.
 
*Identify and Reference all previously related content on this topic (as a resource), for example materials from the UDI Task Force  
 
*Identify and Reference all previously related content on this topic (as a resource), for example materials from the UDI Task Force  
 +
** Available through the PSS.
  
 
=Next Meeting:=
 
=Next Meeting:=

Latest revision as of 16:01, 4 February 2016

Minutes - Universal Device Identifier Use Cases Project Meeting, February 4, 2016

Contents

  1. Attendees:
  2. Meeting Discussion:
  3. Action Items:
  4. Next Meeting:

Attendees:

  • Hans Buitendijk
  • Terrie Reed
  • Behnaz Minaei
  • Ben Moscovittch
  • Chris Melo
  • Koichiro Matsumoto
  • Martha Velezis
  • Myron Fynseth
  • Scott Brown
  • Steve Rosenberg


Meeting Discussion:

  • Approve Agenda
  • Approve Prior Meeting Minutes, Meeting January 28, 2016
  • Review Call for Participation to ord, devices, pharmacy
  • Review any use cases received, Prioritize
    • Line 8 is considered low priority. Follow-up questions:
      • Do we care about reimbursement number as part of the UDI carrier?
      • Is FDA the right assigning authority, or should it be the issueing agency to ensure implants from US, Brazil, Japan, etc. can be consistently interpreted.
    • Line 9 is considered. Follow-up questions:
      • Would this be just be on the attachment, or in the core of the administrative X12 transaction?
      • Either way, would that be sufficient to feed, or do we need more.
    • X12 items can be used to help justify priority, but do not seem to state specific use cases themselves.
    • We should have a claims submisssion vs. an analytical data collection use case. The first may be of higher priority than the second.
    • Suggest to focus on the core flow first and then on analytical flows (which may result in enrichment of basic capabilities).
  • Next Steps Planning

Action Items:

  • Confirm whether or not the PSS has been approved and submitted to the TSC for approval in time for this Ballot Cycle
    • While submitted mid-December, it did not go out for SSD-SD vote until last Friday. Deadline for votes is Feb 8. Then it will go to TSC. It is also in FMG's queue for approval given potential FHIR involvement / impact.
  • Request new listserv for the UDI Use Cases Project (Patrick sent initial email 1/28, followup 2/2)
    • Done. udi@lists.hl7.org
    • Please sign up.
  • Confirm that the UDI Task Force will be developing 1) UDI DAM and 2) UDI Implementation Guide (to include harmonization across v2, v3, CDA and FHIR)
  • Need to spin off a PSS for the C-CDA to address the individual UDI components (this will be a dependency for IG related work) - Request Paul K. update us on this item
    • Not done yet.
  • Identify and Reference all previously related content on this topic (as a resource), for example materials from the UDI Task Force
    • Available through the PSS.

Next Meeting: