This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "July 11 - Clinical Maturity - options"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 42: Line 42:
* Discussion about the above options. 
* Determined:

Revision as of 21:30, 11 July 2017


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


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: