Difference between revisions of "HL7 WGM Jan 2017, San Antonio"
|Line 365:||Line 365:|
Revision as of 03:49, 20 January 2017
- 1 DRAFT 2017 January Working Group Meeting - San Antonio, TX - SOA WORKING GROUP
- 2 Agenda and Meeting Minutes
- 3 Meeting Minutes Draft
DRAFT 2017 January Working Group Meeting - San Antonio, TX - SOA WORKING GROUP
Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) WORKING GROUP SESSIONS
Agenda and Meeting Minutes
|Day||Date||Qtr||Time||AGENDA ITEMS||Session Leader||Room|
|SUN||JAN 15||Q1||9:00-10:30||No Meeting||.|
|Q3||1:45 -3:00||No Meeting||.|
|Q4||3:30 -5:00||No Meeting||.|
|MON||JAN 16||Q1||9:00-10:30||No Meeting||.|
|Q3||1:45 -3:00|| Workgroup Overview / HSSP Intro / New Attendee "Jumpstart"
||SOA||Regency East #2|
|Q4||3:30-5:00|| "Round Robin" Project Updates
Each active project collaborating with SOA will provide a 5-10 minute update on their current status and activities planned for the week. This is the best quarter to attend to receive an overview of all SOA-related work across all projects.
|SOA||Regency East #2|
|TUE||JAN 17||Q1||9:00-10:30||Joint With FHIR Infrastructure (confirmed)
|Q2||11:00-12:30||Joint w/ Patient Care and Patient Administration (Confirmed)
|Q3||1:45-3:00||Patient Administration (Confirmed)
|Q4||3:30 - 5:00||Ordering Service Work Session
|Q5||Open Source Birds of a Feather||
||SOA||Rio Grande Center|
|WED||JAN 18||Q1||9:00-10:30 Split meeting||
1. Joint w/EHR, Security, CBCC, SOA, FHIR
2. Scheduling Service Continuing discussion (?)
|Q2||11:00-12:30||Joint w/Security and CBCC (confirmed)
|Q3||1:45 -3:00||HSSP Reference Architecture or Cloud Planning Work Session
|Q4||3:30 -5:00||Cloud Planning Work Session
|THU||JAN 19||Q1||9:00-10:30||Co-chair meeting?
|Q3||1:45 - 3:00||No Meeting||.|
|Q4||3:30 - 5:00||No Meeting||.|
|FRI||JAN 20||Q1||9:00-10:30||No Meeting||.|
|Q3||1:45 -3:00||No Meeting||.|
|Q4||3:30 -5:00||No Meeting||.|
Q1=9:00 – 10:30 am; Q2=11:00 – 12:30 pm; Q3=1:45 – 3:00 pm; Q4=3:30 – 5:00 pm
Meeting Minutes Draft
- Workgroup Overview / HSSP Intro / New Attendee "Jumpstart"
- Provides overview of the workgroup, mission, charter, objectives, current work, etc.
- Welcome and Introductions:
- Agenda Review
- Review and approval of previous WGM minutes
- Round Robin updates
- PASS Access Control: Publication package complete. Waiting on confirmation from ANSI that spec has been published.
- PASS Audit: Ballot complete.
- Clinical Decision Support on FHIR:
- Cross-Paradigm Interoperability Project Update: Work is complete. Stefano to follow-up on reconciliation package and publication.
- Coordination of Care Service - Tech Spec Status: Next submission date is set for mid-February and will be reviewed in March. Looking at late 2017 for the adoption of the technical spec.
- Ordering Service: Initial submission happened in Dec 2016. Revised submission will happen in Feb 2017.
- HL7 Cloud Planning Guide Document: Reviewing the PSS and making sure that the scope makes sense for HL7 to publish. Looking at possibly coordinating with HSPC. Will vote on the joint proposal Wed Q3. Will put in an NIB for May 2017.
- Pub/Sub Service: Still need to review with OMG. Move forward with the STU extension. Action to be taken by Emory.
- Unified Communications Service: Write up an RFC (to be decided this quarter). Moving forward with the STU extension. Action to be taken by Emory.
- FHIR Connect-a-thon: General purpose guidance for Clinical Reasoning Module. Had several participants. Scenario: Apply an order template for a specific patient. FHIR clinical reasoning CDS Service for Zika infection management. Created a clinical reasoning decision artifact. Incorporated in the an end-user experience Epic implementation that can return recommendations. Click here for full presentation.
- HSSP Process Guide (SOA on FHIR): Ken wrote up a document, "HSSP Standards Development Process" to outline how to incorporate FHIR into SOA specifications as well as update the overall HSSP process. Detailed discussion will continue Tuesday Q1.
- Scheduling/Resource Management Service:
- All Hands meeting schedule and attendance:
- Joint With FHIR Infrastructure (confirmed)
- SOA specification within FHIR:
- Began by re-capping what was done at the last WGM. Went through the SOA-FHIR Process PPT.
- CDS is blazing the trail. Looking at Ordering service and Scheduling service to actually test the process as outlined in the document. Targeting FHIR STU 4 for incorporating FHIR into these standards.
- Another standard which may be incorporating a FHIR section is PASS SLS.
- Ken shared the HSSP process document. Sean - have we reviewed any of the FHIR IGs? Ken - no but it is on our radar. Joshua - Tool is IG publisher, the US Core IG would be the place to start. Joshua likes the requirement for implementation in the OMG process. The IG publisher tool is available on the FHIR webpage.
- SOA specification within FHIR:
Joshua - is there a group that we can point to who will be implementing this process. Ken - in theory, Scheduling will be doing this. They are very open to doing this process. Joshua - Good. This is the first we've heard of this type of process being implemented. Don - Are there any other projects that are doing this and are there any projects that FHIR is aware of that would fit this model? Joshua - The main one that came to my mind was Scheduling so I'm glad to hear that is happening. Ken - CDS on FHIR is fairly mature already but they may bring some in retroactively.
Ken - under this process the SFM doesn't go away. Provides a bridge with what we do today. We want to make sure that as we do new services, they fit well with the existing specs.
Specific actions: Ken would like a peer review of this process document from a FHIR perspective. Who would be willing to do this?
Action Item Joshua - Lloyd put out an email asking if folks need help. If that doesn't result in a good response, then I am willing to do the review. Ken - That is good for the process doc review. Another issue is how to do the 6 objectives that would be consistent for all SOA specifications (such as naming conventions, etc...). What would that look like.
Action Item - Ken to send a note to me or the FHIR Infrastructure for help in creating SOA specific templates.
Timeframe? Joshua - probably after STU 3. Ken - Since Bryn put his hand up, that may be fine. Diana - hopefully we can get some feedback on the process document.
- Changed from Joint with Patient Care to Reference Architecture discussion.
Need to flesh out the RA to make it useable.
Can we visualize this starting with the FHIR workflow and then identify the differences when approaching from an SOA point of view.
Action Item - Need to add Orchestration Service and Workflow service to the diagram.
Did a preliminary sequence diagram for the RA.
- Patient Care
- Status - reopened the letter of intent until December but had no takers. It is now closed. Interest from LSU and they are offering one of their hospitals as a possible test bed. Next submission date is for the March OMG meeting.
Ken - VA is doing work about workflow and care teams, transitions within and between care teams. Right now what is in FHIR care teams resources is falling short of what VA needs. This is an angle for coordination of care. Need to know the structure and high-level thinking in order to get it into the spec.
Laura - ONC started calls on care teams on Fridays. PC owns care teams as a steward and are really working through some of the issues. There is an outstanding question regarding if this needs to be pulled into HL7 PC.
For Madrid - Set up a joint meeting with PC Tuesday at Q2.
- Patient Administration (Confirmed)
- Scheduling Service Discussion:
- gForge items
- Structure of slot
- Methodology Status
- Ken - seems like folks have a handle on the FHIR stuff but the SFM process is a bit opaque. Ken presents the HSSP Process document. Hope is to get 3 or 4 folks (Brian Postlethwaite, Bryn Rhodes, and Dave Carlson) who know both Scheduling and FHIR to work through the process and identify issues with the process and help refine it. Cooper - Trying to understand how this is going to work in the current way of doing things. Brian/Andrew: we may build something faster than this process will allow. Ken - may have to do this iteratively where we start with a "pre-alpha" product. Where we came out of the Baltimore meeting having identified the service specification package which includes 6 elements (listed in the HSSP process document). In the short-term, will work with what we have in STU3 but we don't want to do anything that will interfere with the use of STU4.
- Andrew: we will start building stuff before STU3 even due to demand. We will be harmonizing with upcoming STU3 and then 4 work.
- Status of specification
- Ken - see if I can get more involvement on the VA side. HSPC may have some providers that would be interested in this project. Cooper: we had more folks coming but we haven't done a good job of pulling in all folks who have expressed an interest. Ken: It helps to have something "half-baked" before bringing in the folks on your list.
- Encounter has been cleaned up. Appointment has similar issues with cardinality. In the process of cleaning up. Need to open up the cardinality to 0..*. The reason for the appointment may not be declared at the time of the scheduling of the appointment. Ken - suggesting that there should be a primary reason and then secondary reasons as this can affect the equipment needed and even the location of the appointment. When at HP, they had some pretty mature scheduling analysis work. If we think that would be useful, I can reach out to HP and see if they are willing to release the information to HL7.
- FHIR STU4 Discussion: Goal is to have a substantial scheduling service available for STU4.
- There is some workflow portability work that is happening elsewhere that could be brought in here. STU4 is a working goal.
- Scheduling Service Discussion:
vote: 14/0/2 to support the 9262 FHIR change request for the Appointment resource. Recommendation: PA create a split meeting for this quarter where PA can only send the folks who are interested.
- Ordering Service Work Session
- Walkthrough of ordering service technical specification work,
- relationship to FHIR workflow activities,
- Catalog resource is being proposed for FHIR. Ordering Service SFM was expanded to incorporate the FHIR Catalog resource. FHIR workflow hasn't really pulled in anything from Ordering Service or FHIR Catalog. The OMG submission consists of the Ordering Service Technical submission which incorporates Order Management and Catalog Management. The FHIR Workflow has 6 architectures but most of what they have currently aren't workflows.
- state of OMG submissions
- took to OMG in Dec 2016 and is available for review at https://healthservices.atlassian.net/wiki/display/WGS/HSPC+OMG+Ordering+Service+RFP+WG
- The OMG prefers the normative version to be the UML model. Claude is working on the ordering front. Hoping the final submission would be in March but finding that to be a bit ambitious.
- Fleshed out Order Proposal Handling and Order WorkFlow. Updated OrderQuery. Trying to be compliant with SOAP (FHIR) and RestFul implementations (requirement of RFP). OMG requires both PIMs and PSMs. Currently working on the PIM. Ordering as a domain is dynamic. Have is set up using encapsulation to allow for flexibility. The Main Order Entities model is to undergo major revision to reduce confusion due to state changes that were only implicit and terms that are too similar. In OO, they tried to take a diagnostic order and go through the workflow. Need to be able to associate a workflow with an item. What is inside the workflow may change depending on the implementation. Also need an ordering service that may or may not plug into a fulfillment service.
- Recommended approach: Work the specification and submit. Later, bring in the FHIR implementation and then put out an RFC.
Action Item: Jerry Goodnough to reach out to Jonathan Nebeker about providing resources for this project.
WED Q1: Split meeting
- Joint w/EHR, Security, CBCC, SOA, FHIR (See EHR for meeting minutes)
- Scheduling Service Continuing discussion -
- Cloud Planning Guide
- Consistent group meeting and advancing the work. May target.
- Identifying areas where HL7 standards have particular relevance; security a key area of interest
- “SOA on FHIR”
- Has been a SOA priority; have a much better perspective on how to do that now
- Producing a collective set of FHIR artifacts templated to SOA
- Working in collaboration with FHIR Infrastructure Group
- Security Labeling Service PSS
- New project scope statement to build upon existing SLS work
- Re-envision to align work to FHIR; building on SOA on FHIR activities
- Some discussion about the role of SLS as applied to FHIR. Not self-evident how they fit together;
- API is content specifying but content agnostic
- Discussion and questions about the role of SLS and persistence of Security Labeling in FHIR
- Questions about whether a dedicated FHIR section should be added to the document
- 1138 CST: Mike Davis agreed with John Moehrke on Project scope wording re: FHIR
- SLS to address how to inspect FHIR objects
- Motion to Accept PSS (Kathleen Connor) Second (Mike Davis). Passed (14-0-4)
- Reference Architecture: Work on it Thursday, Q2.
- Cloud discussion
- Vadim presented a proposed simplification of the scope of the document. Proposing that we start with high-level, universal concerns that come up when looking at a cloud implementation.
- In answer to the question, why do this, Ken suggested these bullet points:
- HL7 does a lot of implementation guides, and did not have presence in the cloud space.
- Many HL7 standards are being implemented using cloud platforms.
- In conjunction with HSPC, we are addressing what has been a significant gap in the industry.
- Proposal - Finish going through Vadim's presentation and then take a first pass at the Phase 2 content and that might be as much as we get through for the May ballot.
- Who is our audience? One possibility is IT folks talking to Managers and needing a resource regarding which addresses their concerns. For the newbie, it's education and ramp-up, for the expert - it's legitimization or substantiation, for the intermediate - it's validation.
- Motion: Approach HSPC about making this a joint collaborative effort subject to HL7 and HSPC board agreement. Ken made motion, Vadim seconded. 5/0/0
- Action Item - Ken will approach HSPC regarding above motion.
- SOA Platform - Phase 2
- Awareness of HL7 portfolio
- Reference implementation examples (Reference Architecture diagram if we have a deployment diagram showing how the cloud and HL7 worlds fit using the HSPC platform container model.)
- Bring in responses to survey to legitimize why these services are valuable.
- Awareness of HL7 portfolio
- Reference Architecture discussion
- MDMI isn't a service. There should be a different color for supporting specifications that aren't services.
- Want to extend the current Reference Architecture diagram by diagramming out a use case which accesses multiple services.
- Possible use case - Payor (insurance), Eligibility, Patient Care Lifecycle (Continuity of care, transfer of care from inpatient to outpatient & long-term care/physical therapy.)
- Co-chairs met to discuss plans for Madrid.
- Co-chairs agreed to meet on a monthly basis in order to identify direction for future work in SOA.
- Identified a Care use case scenario and created a sequence diagram showing the SOA services interacting in order to complete the steps of the scenario.
|SOA Attendee||1 MON Q3||2 MON Q4||3 TUES Q1||4 TUES Q2||5 TUE Q3||6 TUE Q4||7 WED Q1||8 WED Q2||9 WED Q3||10 WED Q4||11 THU Q1||12 THU Q2|
|Ken RubinSOA Co-Chair/VA||x||x||x||x||x||x||7||x||x||x||x||12||13||.|
|Diana Proud-MadrugaSOA Co-Chair/VA||1||x||x||x||x||x||7||x||x||x||x||x||13||.|
|Vincent McCauley SOA Co-Chair/Telstra Health||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Stefano Lotti SOA Co-Chair||x||x||x||x||x||x||7||x||x||x||x||x||13||.|
|Dave Carlson Book Zurman||1||2||x||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Lorraine Constable Constable Consulting||1||2||x||4||5||x||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Jerry Goodnough Cognitive Med. Sys.||x||x||3||4||x||x||7||8||x||x||11||x||13||.|
|Mohammad Jafari VA||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Preston Lee VA, Arizona State University||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Ken Lord VA||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Dan Morford Book Zurman||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Sean Muir VA||x||2||x||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Vadim Polyakov Inovalon||x||x||x||x||x||x||7||8||x||x||11||12||13||.|
|Chris Shawn VA||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||x||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Trish Williams Edith Corvan Univ||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Duane DeCouteau VA||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||x||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Mike Davis VA||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||x||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Johnathan Coleman ONC||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Hideyuki Miyohara HL7 Japan||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||x||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Josh Mandel Children's Harvard||1||2||x||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Kevin Shekleton Cerner||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Laura Heermann Intermountain Healthcare||1||2||3||4||x||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Emma Jones Allscripts||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Claude Nanjo Cognitive||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Juha Mykkanen HL7 Finland/National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) Finland||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Bryn Lewis Intelsoft||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Manoj Sharma Allscripts||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Chana West ESAC Inc.||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Kevan Riley Infor (?)||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Zach May ESAC Inc.||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Rashedul Hasan FDA||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Cooper Thompson Epic||1||2||3||4||x||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Karl Holzer CGM||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Oliver Krauss University of Applied Science Upper Austria||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Alexander Mense HL7 Austria||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||x||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Victor Harrison OMG||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Emory Fry Cognitive||x||x||3||4||5||x||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Elizabeth Newton KP||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Gora Datta ?||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|[mailto: Kathleen Connor] VA||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||x||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Andrew Statler Cerner||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Brian Pech ?||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Mark Scrimshire ?||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Vladimir Vasiltsov CAGH||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Huy Huynh Amazon||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Craig Knier McKesson||x||x||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Adamu Haruna Nokia||x||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Chris Grear Analysts||1||x||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Kent Lemoine CDC||1||2||x||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Rene Kinsey VA||1||2||x||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Sam Mater Epic||1||2||3||x||x||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Shuai Zheng CDC||1||2||3||x||x||x||7||8||9||10||11||x||13||.|
|Tracy Angeles Conduent||1||2||3||4||x||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Alex DeLeon Kaiser Permanente||1||2||3||4||x||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Irma Jongeneel HL7 Netherlands||1||2||3||4||x||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Wes Rishel Self||1||2||3||4||x||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Andrew Torres Cerner||1||2||3||4||x||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Brian Postlethwaite Telestra Health||1||2||3||4||x||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Simone Hickmann HL7 Germany||1||2||3||4||x||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Biru Yang Houston Health Dept||1||2||3||4||x||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Truc Pham Houston Health Dept||1||2||3||4||x||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Ali Momin Houston Health Dept||1||2||3||4||x||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Suzanne Gonzales-Webb VA||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||x||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|David Pyke Ready Computing||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||x||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Jim Kretz SAMHSA||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||x||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Joe Lamy Aegis||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||x||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|John Moehrke VA||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||x||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|M'Lynda Owens Cognosante||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||x||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|[mailto: Steve Hufnagel]|
|[mailto: Raheem Daya] McKesson|
|[mailto: Shane Loney] McKesson|
|Greg Gustafson Penrad|
|Daniel Laupheur McKesson|
|Bryn Rhodes ESAC||1||x||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|[mailto: Martin Rosner]|
|[mailto: Yunwei Wang]|
|[mailto: Maxim Abramsky]|
|[mailto: Raphael Majeed]|
|[mailto: Artem Sopin]|
|Don Jorgenson Inpriva||1||2||x||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11||12||13||.|
|Andy Bond NEHTA|
|Robert Bishop VA|
|Nancy Orvis DoD|
|Russell Ott Deloitte|