July 11 - Clinical Maturity - options

• Back to: Clinicians on FHIR - Sept 2017, San Diego
• Back to Clinician on FHIR 2017

Attendees:

• Stephen Chu
• Emma Jones
• Russ Leftwich
• Jay Lyle
• Laura Heermann

Ápology':

Meeting Notes from June 27:
- Discussions on email from Lloyd McKenzie on:

~ QA Criteria for FHIR artifacts and IGs

~ The criteria are comprehesnive. But will be difficult to fit the clinical maturity criteria into the set of conformance and QA criteria

- Discussions on two different approaches:

~ Option 1: Continue to work on clinical maturity spreadsheet.

~ Then work out way(s) to fit the maturity criteria into

* Risk: unlikely that a fit is possible

~ Or use the maturity criteria as a separate assessment in addition to the existing FHIR maturity levels (Level 0 to 6)

* Risk: implementer resistance. There are expressions on preference to have only one set of maturity assessment criteria

~ Option 2: Formalise a set of robust and useful clinical use cases, and use them to test FHIR resources

* Advantage: may be fitted into FMM3 and FMM4 of the FHIR maturity model

* Issues: may not be as comprehensive as the Clinical Maturity Model (as use cases testing is one of the Clinical Maturity criteria)

~ There is suggestion to identify a small number of FHIR clinical resources (e.g. Care Plan, Care Team) for testing Option 2 to determine how best this option works

- Decision:

~ To present the options to a broader audience/participants after at the July 11 Conference call.

- Clinical Maturity Model: Early draft:

Clinical Maturity Model spreadsheet draft 2017-06-20

• Discussion about the above options.
• Determined: